Supreme Court
Case Title : SANTOSH ASSOCIATE PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.
Case Number : SLP (C) No. 31245 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz SC 277
The Supreme Court on Monday requested the Chief Justice of India to consider whether a larger Bench should examine the validity of contractual clauses requiring a party to deposit a percentage of its claim before invoking arbitration.
A Bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Manmohan expressed doubts over the correctness of the three-Judge ruling in S.K. Jain v. State of Haryana, which had upheld a similar pre-deposit condition.
The bench was hearing an appeal concerning a contractual clause requiring a contractor to deposit 10% of its claim before the dispute could be referred to arbitration. It requested the CJI to consider whether the questions framed in the judgment warrant reference to a larger Bench.
The court noted that S.K. Jain, decided by a three-Judge Bench, had described the pre-deposit requirement as a “balancing factor to prevent frivolous and inflated claims." It held the condition to be non-arbitrary, reasonable, and having a nexus with the object sought to be achieved.
The present Bench observed that it was “prima facie in agreement” with the reasoning in ICOMM Tele Ltd. v. Punjab State Water Supply & Sewerage Board. That two-Judge Bench had held that a pre-deposit requirement could discourage alternative dispute resolution and undermine its objective of declogging the court system.
The court further observed, “This Court is of the considered view that an arbitration clause cannot impose pre-deposit conditions so onerous as to render the right to sue, at the very threshold, illusory or nugatory. A stipulation mandating the deposit of a substantial percentage of the claim amount, as a precondition to invoking arbitration would inevitably suppress claims, deter recourse to alternative dispute resolution, and thereby defeat its very object.”
Supreme Court Stays Bombay High Court Order Directing CDSL To Pay ₹86.02 Lakh To Investor
Case Title : Central Depository Services (India) Limited v. Daksha Narendra Bhavsar & Anr.
Case Number : SLP (C) No. 26300/2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz SC 268
On 7 August, the Supreme Court stayed the operation of a Bombay High Court order that had upheld an arbitral award directing Central Depository Services (India) Limited (CDSL) to pay Rs. 86.02 lakh with interest to investor Daksha Narendra Bhavsar for losses arising from the transfer and pledge of her demat shares by BRH Wealth Kreators Limited.
A Division Bench comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran issued notice on CDSL's Special Leave Petition, returnable on 10 September 2026. The Court observed that it needed “to closely look into the matter,” adding that “the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court shall remain stayed from its operation.”
Supreme Court Upholds Interim Relief To Unsuccessful Arbitration Party In 'Rare, Compelling' Case
Case Title : Justice K.V. Viswanathan and Justice Alok Aradhe
Case Number : Civil Appeal No. 5819 of 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz SC 266
The Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld interim relief granted to an unsuccessful party in arbitration, finding that it had met the higher threshold required for post-award relief under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
A bench of Justice K.V. Viswanathan and Justice Alok Aradhe upheld a Delhi High Court order directing National Projects Construction Corporation Ltd. (NPCC) to deposit ₹3.5 crore, which it had realised by invoking bank guarantees furnished by Ishvakoo (India) Pvt. Ltd.
The bench noted that the maintainability of a Section 9 application by an unsuccessful party after an arbitral award was already settled. It relied on its recent judgment in Home Care Retail Marts Pvt. Ltd. v. Haresh N. Sanghavi, where the court held that the distinction between a winning and losing party does not by itself determine access to Section 9 relief.
Case Title : RAJASTHAN RAJYA VIDYUT UTPADAN NIGAM LTD. VERSUS PARSA KENTE COLLIERIES LIMITED
Case Number: Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 25773/2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz SC 262
The Supreme Court has recently replaced Justice Arun Mishra with former judge Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul as sole arbitrator in a dispute between Adani-linked Parsa Kente Collieries Ltd. and Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd.
To that extent, the court has modified the Rajasthan High Court's July 3, 2026 order appointing Justice Mishra as the sole arbitrator.
The dispute arises from their agreement for mining and supply of coal from the Parsa East and Kanta Basan blocks.
A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana replaced the arbitrator after recording that the parties had mutually agreed to appoint Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, former Supreme Court Judge as the sole arbitrator.
Modifying the High Court's order, the Court said, "Though we do not find the ground urged for change of arbitrator legally sustainable, however, during the course of hearing, the parties have mutually agreed for appointment of Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, former Judge of this Court, to be the sole arbitrator. The impugned judgment of the High Court stands modified in terms of the aforesaid."
Case Title : KKH Finvest Pvt. Ltd. and Another v. Ashiesh Shukla and Others
Case Number : Civil Appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 4222 of 2025
Citation 2026 LLBiz SC 261
The Supreme Court has held that a non-signatory consultant-shareholder whose performance under a separate Share Purchase Agreement is fundamental to completing a Memorandum of Settlement (MoS) can be treated as a "veritable party" to the settlement's arbitration agreement.
Allowing an appeal filed by KKH Finvest Private Limited and Sensorise Digital Services Private Limited, a Division Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva observed, "it is clear that the performance of his obligations by Ashiesh Shukla under his Share Purchase Agreement was fundamental to the completion of the obligations spelt out in the MoS. Being a shareholder in his own right, unless Ashiesh Shukla also transferred his shares, the MoS would inevitably remain incomplete."
The bench set aside the Delhi High Court's decision refusing to refer consultant-shareholder Ashiesh Shukla to arbitration. It held that he was also a veritable party to the MoS.
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.
Case Title : Kinetic Green Energy and Power Solutions Limited v. Saera Electric Auto Limited
Case Number : Civil Appeal No. 13117 of 2026 arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 31162 of 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz SC 319
The Supreme Court on Thursday referred to arbitration as a dispute between Kinetic Green Energy and Power Solutions Limited and Saera Electric Auto Limited over contractual exclusivity and non-compete obligations.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi appointed former Supreme Court judge Justice R.V. Raveendran as the sole arbitrator.
“Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties, we are of the opinion that the constitution of an Arbitral Tribunal to adjudicate the disputes between the parties would be the appropriate course of action at this stage,” it said.
Appeal Against Rejection Of Interim Relief Cannot Be Remitted To Arbitral Tribunal: Supreme Court
Case Title : Union of India & Others v. Hariom Projects Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number: Civil Appeal of 2026 arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 33087 of 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz SC 316
The Supreme Court has held that a High Court cannot transfer an appeal against rejection of an interim-relief application under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act to an arbitral tribunal and direct the tribunal to treat it as an application for interim measures.
A bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Prasanna B. Varale set aside a Bombay High Court direction to that extent in a dispute between the Union of India and Hariom Projects Pvt. Ltd.
"The appellate jurisdiction under Section 37 is vested exclusively in the “Court” as contemplated under Section 2(1)(e) of the Act. An Arbitral Tribunal exercising powers under Section 17 does not exercise appellate jurisdiction over an order passed by a competent Court under Section 9. Consequently, the effect of the impugned direction would be to require the Arbitral Tribunal to examine the subject matter of a statutory appeal under Section 37 by treating the appellate proceedings as an application under Section 17. The nature and source of the powers exercised by an appellate Court under Section 37 are distinct from the powers conferred upon an Arbitral Tribunal under Section 17 and same cannot be interchanged merely by transmitting or remitting the appellate proceedings to the Tribunal.", the court ruled.
Case Title : MAHANADI COALFIELDS LTD & ORS. VERSUS M/S GSCO (GURMEET SINGH AND COMPANY) INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.
Case Number : SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 2 1 3 7 5 O F 2 0 2 5
Citation : 2026 LLBiz SC 315
The Supreme Court has ruled that a petition challenging an arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act can be filed before a Commercial Court.
Where no Commercial Court has been established, it can be filed before a District Court within the territorial jurisdiction of the concerned High Court.
This is unless the parties have agreed otherwise or a specific arbitral seat has been determined.
A bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva made the observation while allowing Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd's appeal against an Orissa High Court order. The High Court had held that MCL's Section 34 petitions before the District Judge, Sundargarh were not maintainable for want of jurisdiction and were also time barred.
The Supreme Court set aside the June 20, 2025 order and restored the petitions before the Sundargarh court.
“A High Court of a State exercises jurisdiction over the entire State and as such all the Commercial Courts/District Courts (where no commercial Court has been set up) within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court would have jurisdiction to entertain a petition under section 34 of the Act,” the court ruled.
Arbitral Tribunal Erred In Granting Pre-Reference Interest Despite Contractual Bar: Supreme Court
Case Title : North Eastern Electric Power Corporation Limited (NEEPCO) v. Astra Construction Private Limited
Case Number : Civil Appeal of 2026 arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 24803 of 2025 | 2026 INSC 1036
Citation: 2026 LLBiz SC 314
The Supreme Court has set aside a High Court order restoring pre-reference interest to a contractor, holding that the contract barred the grant of such interest.
The arbitral tribunal had awarded ₹3.30 crore on four claims, along with 12% annual pre-reference interest. The Supreme Court held that the tribunal exceeded the bounds of its jurisdiction by awarding the interest despite the contractual bar.
A Bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe allowed North Eastern Electric Power Corporation Limited's (NEEPCO) appeal against Astra Construction Private Limited.
The court set aside the Meghalaya High Court's order restoring pre-reference interest.
Case Title National Seeds Corporation Ltd. v. National Agro Seed Corporation (India)
Case Number Civil Appeal of 2026 (@ SLP (C) No. 5710 of 2025 )
Citation 2026 LLBiz SC 312
The Supreme Court has asked the Law Commission of India to examine the need for a uniform system governing money deposited with courts and tribunals during appeals.
The exercise will cover where such money should be kept, how it should earn interest, and how the deposit and interest should ultimately be adjusted between the parties.
The direction came while the top court held that National Seeds Corporation Ltd. remained liable to pay 12% interest on an arbitral award amount despite having deposited money in court. The money had been deposited as a condition for staying the award and was not freely available to National Agro Seed Corporation (India) for withdrawal.
A Bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe held that a deposit in court does not by itself stop interest from running. For interest liability to cease, the payment must comply with Order XXI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which lays down the modes of paying money under a decree.
The bench ruled, “A deposit of the amount in the court has to be made unconditionally and the same must be available to the decree-holder for withdrawal, in order to make the deposit in consonance with Order XXI Rule 1 of the Code.”
It further held, “If the deposit is not made in terms of Order XXI Rule 1 of the Code, the interest continues to run on the amount after the deposit.”
Supreme Court Upholds Bombay HC Order Referring Kirloskar Family Dispute To Arbitration
Case Title : KIRLOSKAR BROTHERS LIMITED vs ATUL CHANDRAKANT KIRLOSKAR & ORS.
Case Number : SLP (CIVIL) NO. 8020 OF 2021
Citation : 2026 LLBiz SC 305
The Supreme Court has upheld the Bombay High Court's decision to refer to arbitration a dispute between Kirloskar Brothers Limited and members of the Kirloskar family arising from a Deed of Family Settlement dated September 11, 2009 (DFS).
The DFS sought to formalise the separation of businesses and group companies among different branches of the family with Clause 20 containing an arbitration agreement.
A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana observed the High Court committed no error in leaving these issues open for determination under Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
"We are, therefore, of the view that the High Court committed no error in declining to render a final finding on these questions at the Section 8 stage and in leaving them open for determination by the Arbitral Tribunal under Section 16 of the 1996 Act. In such circumstances, we find no ground warranting interference with the impugned judgment. The instant appeals are accordingly disposed of.", the Court said.
Case Title : National Skill Development Corporation v. Surya Wires Private Limited & Ors.
Case Number : Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 10030 of 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz SC 302
The Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled that an arbitration clause in a loan agreement can bind a personal guarantor even where the guarantee contains no separate arbitration clause.
This applies where the guarantee is expressly integrated into the loan agreement as part of the same composite transaction.
Allowing an appeal by the National Skill Development Corporation (NSDC) against Surya Wires Private Limited and others, the Court set aside the Delhi High Court's judgment upholding the deletion of Surya Wires' Managing Director from the arbitral proceedings.
The appeal before the Supreme Court was confined to the Managing Director, who had executed the Personal Guarantees in his individual capacity. The Court held that he was bound to submit to arbitration as guarantor.
A Division Bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe observed:
“The phrase 'as if the provisions thereof were set out herein in extension' operates as a deeming fiction internal to the contract, binding every facility agreement, including the Personal Guarantee, within the same legal and arbitral framework as the Loan Agreement. The Personal Guarantees do not, therefore, stand apart from the Loan Agreements, and are woven into their very fabric.”
The Court further observed, “A guarantee so defined and so integrated cannot be severed, for purposes of dispute resolution alone, from the very Clause 11.2 that governs disputes touching the rights and obligations arising under that Agreement, while remaining tethered to it for every other purpose, including the extent of liability.”
Case Title : UTTAR PRADESH RAJYA VIDYUT UTPADAN NIGAM LIMITED (UPRVUNL) VS. M/S ADANI ENTERPRISES LIMITED
Case Number :L DIARY NO. - 39836/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz SC 291
The Supreme Court has refused to interfere with a ruling permitting Adani Enterprises Ltd to pursue execution proceedings against Uttar Pradesh Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd and other constituent entities of UCM Coal Company Ltd.
It clarified, however, that Adani's claim must first be satisfied through UCM Coal Company's assets. Execution against the other entities can proceed only if any amount remains unpaid.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana upheld the Allahabad High Court's April 9, 2026, judgment.
The court found that the High Court's findings were supported by the pleadings and documents on record. It nevertheless clarified the order in which the award could be enforced.
The court observed, "In light of the categorical findings returned by the High Court in Paragraph 62 of the Impugned Judgment, which are duly supported by the averments made in the pleadings and the documents on record, we are satisfied that the impugned judgment calls for no interference. However, we deem it appropriate to make it clear that the claim of the decree-holder will firstly be satisfied through the assets of the judgment debtor, namely UCM Coal Company Limited, and it is only if the claim remains unsatisfied that the execution proceedings against the petitioner(s) shall proceed."
Case Title : LARSEN AND TOUBRO LIMITED VS. INDIA INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION AND EXHIBITION CENTRE LIMITED
Case Number: DIARY NO. - 48980/2026
The Supreme Court on Tuesday, 1 September, said it would examine whether an arbitral tribunal can grant interim monetary relief on disputed claims under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
A Bench of Justices P.S. Narasimha and Alok Aradhe issued notice on Larsen & Toubro Ltd.'s challenge to a Delhi High Court judgment which set aside an interim direction requiring India International Convention and Expo Centre Ltd. (IICECL) to release approximately Rs. 227 crore to L&T.
The judges indicated the case raises a “larger issue” on the scope of an arbitral tribunal's interim powers under Section 17, particularly whether it can issue positive monetary directions rather than merely preserve the subject matter of the dispute. They observed:
“This issue of the arbitral tribunal, not merely granting injunctions, as it originally was contemplated, to go further and give positive directions, will have to be considered.”
High Courts
Bombay High Court
Case Title : ZEE Learn Limited v. Beauty Singh
Case Number : Commercial Arbitration Petition (L) No. 20863 of 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 476
The Bombay High Court on 25 August restrained Beauty Singh, a former franchisee of ZEE Learn Limited, from using “KIDZEE”, “KIDGEE” or any deceptively or phonetically similar name for her school pending arbitration.
Justice Amit Borkar partly allowed ZEE Learn's petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (which permits courts to grant interim measures in arbitration related disputes), holding that the trademark dispute arising from the parties' franchise agreement was capable of arbitration. He held:
“Therefore, only because the dispute concerns a trademark, it does not go outside the arbitration agreement. The Court has to see what is the actual right which is being enforced and from where that right arises.”
MSME Registration Does Not Automatically Override Existing Arbitration Agreement: Bombay High Court
Case Title : Qwik Supply Chain Private Limited v. CRPL Infra Private Limited
Case Number : Commercial Arbitration Application No. 377 of 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 475
The Bombay High Court on 25 August held that registration under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (MSMED Act) does not by itself override an agreed contractual arbitration mechanism, where the statutory process before the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council has not actually been invoked.
Justice Amit Borkar allowed Qwik Supply Chain Private Limited's application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and appointed Advocate Vikramjit Grewal as sole arbitrator in its Rs. 76.67 lakh dispute with CRPL Infra Private Limited. The Bench observed:
“Position cannot be understood to mean that registration as MSME removes every arbitration agreement contained in contract. Statutory conditions and factual position have to be considered. A statement that party intends to approach Facilitation Council is different from actual reference under Section 18(1). Statutory process cannot be treated as having commenced merely because one party expressed intention to invoke such remedy.”
Case Title : Samraj Gold Exports Private Limited v. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
Case Number: Arbitration Application (L) No. 12810 of 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 462
The Bombay High Court has recently reiterated that whether an insurance dispute is ultimately arbitrable need not be decided while appointing an arbitrator, leaving that question for the arbitral tribunal to consider.
“A distinction has to be maintained between the final issue whether the dispute is arbitrable and the limited enquiry which this Court is required to undertake at the stage of appointment of an Arbitrator,” Justice Amit Borkar observed.
The court accordingly appointed former Kerala High Court Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar as the sole arbitrator in the dispute between Samraj Gold Exports Private Limited and The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
Bombay High Court Refuses To Restore Terminated LPG Transport Contract Pending Arbitration
Case Title : P. Perumal Transports v. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited & Connected Matters
Case Number : Arbitration Petition (L) Nos. 22666, 22924, 23272, 23312, 23394, 23702 and 23005 of 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 460
The Bombay High Court has refused to order Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (BPCL) and Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOCL) to resume LPG load allotments to tank-truck operators whose transport arrangements were terminated.
The court held that such a direction would effectively revive the terminated contractual relationship while the dispute is pending arbitration.
Justice Amit Borkar observed, “if prayer clause (b) is granted, result would be that contractual relationship which has been terminated would again get restored and Respondent would be required to continue performing contract during pendency of arbitration.”
Case Title : Sandeep Dixit v. Rekha Dixit & Ors.
Case Number : Commercial Arbitration Petition (L) No. 33371 of 2024
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 450
The Bombay High Court has held that an arbitrator cannot disregard the terms of the contract under which a dispute was referred to arbitration and treat WhatsApp exchanges as a separate concluded agreement when that was never the pleaded case.
Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh partly set aside an arbitral award in a family partnership dispute involving a husband, his wife, and other family members.
The court quashed the direction to pay 9% annual interest on a ₹5 crore loan, which the arbitrator had based on WhatsApp exchanges, while leaving the principal amount and the wife's retirement from the firm undisturbed.
“By considering the whatsapp message as concluded contract the Learned Arbitrator has foisted a new contract upon the parties, which was not even the pleaded case of the Respondent No 1. The arbitrator is the creature of the contract and was bound to consider the terms of the contract under which the dispute was referred to arbitration. The dispute was referred in context of the partnership agreement and the Learned Arbitrator has categorically held that it has not delved into the question of interpretation of the partnership agreement and amended Clause 23, which it was bound to do. It was not permissible for the Learned Arbitrator to ignore the terms of partnership deed when the reference arose from the partnership deed and create a new contract between the parties,” the court observed.
Case Title Waterfield Advisors Private Limited vs Sridhar Kurpad
Case Number COMM ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 1149 OF 2025
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 449
The Bombay High Court has recently held that a company cannot rely on its own failure to frame an Employee Stock Option Plan (ESOP) to deny an employee equity that was offered as part of his remuneration package.
Justice N.J. Jamadar made the observation while dismissing Waterfield Advisors Private Limited's petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The company had challenged an arbitral award directing it to allot 31,878 equity shares to its former Director (Operations), Sridhar Kurpad. “On first principles, the Petitioner company cannot be permitted to take advantage of its failure to frame employee stock option scheme,” the court ruled.
“To allow the Petitioner to now take advantage of its omission to frame a scheme, when it had made an offer of equity as a part of its remuneration package to the employees would amount to putting a premium on its own wrong.”
Case Title : Shiv Keshrimal Agrawa vs Farma Hub Overseas Private Limited & Ors
Case Number : COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION PETITION (L) NO.14011 OF 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 448
The Bombay High Court has recently held that the mere filing of a company petition before the National Company Law Tribunal does not bar a shareholder from seeking interim relief under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
This applies where the relief sought concerns rights arising from a Shareholders' Agreement containing an arbitration clause.
Justice Amit Borkar, while partly allowing a petition filed by a 33% shareholder and Director of Farma Hub Overseas Pvt Ltd, rejected the objection based on the pending NCLT proceedings.
The court observed, “In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any merit in the preliminary objection raised by the Respondents that mere filing of Company Petition before the National Company Law Tribunal creates a bar against the present proceedings under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The objection, therefore, deserves to be rejected.”
Case Title : Satyavan Vishnu Agate, Sole Proprietor of M/s Vision Enterprises v. Airports Authority of India & Connected Matters
Case Number : Commercial Arbitration Petition No. 219 of 2025 with connected Commercial Arbitration Petition (L) Nos. 10397, 5861, 5932 and 6073 of 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 453
The Bombay High Court has refused to allow three EV charging station licence holders to restart their projects on Airports Authority of India (AAI) land in Mumbai, holding that such relief could effectively restore performance under license agreements that AAI had sought to terminate.
Justice Amit Borkar observed that the interim reliefs sought under the Arbitration Act were mandatory in nature to a considerable extent and went beyond merely preserving the existing position.
“Petitioners do not merely seek preservation of existing position. They seek permission to restart work. They seek continuation of construction activities. They seek restoration of performance. Grant of such relief would change existing position instead of merely preserving it,” the court observed.
Case Title : Osterreichischer Lloyd Seereederei v. Victore Ships Private Limited
Case Number: Commercial Arbitration Petition No. 403 of 2025
Citation 2026 : LLBiz HC (BOM) 445
The Bombay High Court on 5 August held that a party cannot claim it was unable to present its case when it voluntarily chose not to participate in arbitration, and allowed enforcement of a USD 200,733.01 foreign arbitral award, along with interest and costs, in favour of Osterreichischer Llyod Seereederei against Victore Ships Private Limited.
A Bench of Justice Arif S. Doctor held:
“Section 48(1)(b) is intended to protect a party who, for reasons beyond its control, was genuinely unable to present its case before the arbitral Tribunal. It is not meant to be used as a shield to resist enforcement by a party who has chosen not to appear before a Tribunal despite ample opportunity. In the present case, it is undisputed that the Respondent was duly served with notices of the arbitral proceedings and was repeatedly afforded opportunities to enter an appearance and file its Statement of Defence. The Respondent nevertheless chose not to do so. Such voluntary abstention can by no stretch of imagination be characterised as an inability to present one's case within the meaning of Section 48(1)(b). To accept such a contention would really be doing violence to the plain language of the provision.”
General Body Approval Not A Formality In Housing Society Redevelopment: Bombay High Court
Case Title : Rishabraj Estate Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Heeramani Ratan Cooperative Housing Society Limited
Case Number : Commercial Arbitration Petition (L) No. 19177 of 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 441
The Bombay High Court has held that approval of a housing society's General Body cannot be treated as a mere formality in redevelopment, observing that members surrender possession of their existing homes and thereafter receive reconstructed flats.
“Redevelopment permanently affects rights of all members because they surrender possession of their existing premises and thereafter receive reconstructed flats. Therefore, approval of the General Body cannot be treated as formality,” Justice Amit Borkar observed.
The court made the observation while dismissing a petition filed by Rishabraj Estate Developers Pvt. Ltd., which sought interim protection over its proposed redevelopment of Heeramani Ratan Cooperative Housing Society Limited's property in Goregaon (West), Mumbai.
Case Title : M/s. S. E. Investments Ltd. (now known as Paisalo Digital Limited) v. Star Bazaar Private Limited & Ors. (with connected matters)
Case Number : Interim Application No. 2007 of 2026 in Commercial Execution Application No. 59 of 2016
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 436
The Bombay High Court on 4 August held that an executing court cannot refuse enforcement of an arbitral award arising from proceedings initiated before the 2015 amendment to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 merely because the arbitrator was appointed unilaterally, unless the appointment lacked contractual authority and was made without the other party's consent.
Justice Jitendra Jain held that pre-23 October 2015 arbitral awards remain enforceable where the arbitration agreement named the arbitrator, identified the office-holder who would act as arbitrator, or authorised one party to appoint the arbitrator, unless the appointment was successfully challenged. He observed:
“Unilateral appointment of an arbitrator prior to 23 October 2015 wherein the arbitration clause provides for a named arbitrator or by designation or authorising appointment of an arbitrator by one of the party will not be without jurisdiction and consequently, the proceedings arising therefrom would not be void ab initio except in cases, where there is no contractual clause in the agreement naming a particular arbitrator or conferring on one of the party the right to unilateral appointment of an arbitrator but the appointment is made by one of the party in the absence of consent of other party. In the latter case, it will be void.”
Case Title : Arkawelle Infra Private Limited v. Carbon Minus Energy Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Case Number : Commercial Arbitration Petition (L) No. 294 of 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 431
The Bombay High Court has ruled that the public infrastructure nature of a project does not, by itself, prevent courts from granting interim protection under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
It observed that courts must balance the parties' commercial rights while ensuring that public projects are not delayed.
"Merely because the project relates to public infrastructure, it does not take away the jurisdiction of this court under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The court is required to balance the competing interests of both sides. While ensuring that the public project is not delayed, the court must also see that rights of the parties are not defeated before the disputes are adjudicated by the learned Arbitral Tribunal," Justice Amit Borkar observed.
Case Title : Reliance Asset Reconstruction Co. Ltd. v. Hiroo Hotchand Advani
Case Number : Commercial Appeal (L) No. 14725 of 2026 in Commercial Execution Application No. 43 of 2025, along with Commercial Appeal (L) No. 15441 of 2026 in Commercial Execution Application No. 44 of 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 424
The Bombay High Court on 20 July held that orders recording satisfaction of arbitral awards can be challenged only if they fall within the categories specifically provided under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
A Division Bench of Justices Bharati Dangre and Manjusha Deshpande dismissed the commercial appeals filed by Reliance Asset Reconstruction Co. Ltd. against Hiroo Hotchand Advani, holding that the Arbitration and Conciliation Act provides a complete appellate framework and parties cannot invoke the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 to create a wider right of appeal. It observed:
“Thus, in our view, any attempt to draw an artificial semantic distinction between a 'Judgment' and an 'Order' under Section 13(1-A) of the Act of 2015, to bypass Section 37, would be a fundamentally erroneous approach in the wake of the limited scope of judicial intervention in the arbitration proceedings.”
Arbitral Tribunal Can Pass Interim Award Without Framing Issues Or Separate Plea: Bombay High Court
Case Title : Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai v. Kekobad Dossabhoy Doongriwalla & Anr
Case Number : Commercial Arbitration Petition No. 543 of 2025 with Interim Application (L) No. 23543 of 2023
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC BOM 426
The Bombay High Court has ruled that an arbitral tribunal can pass an interim award at any stage of the proceedings on any matter it is empowered to finally decide, even if no formal issue has been framed or a separate application seeking such an award has been filed.
Justice N.J. Jamadar observed that the decisive question is whether the parties are in dispute over a matter that the arbitral tribunal is required to finally determine, and not whether a formal issue has been settled for adjudication.
“On a bare textual reading of Section 31(6), and the use of expressions 'at any time' and 'on any matter' which do not seem to limit the arbitral Tribunal's power to pass an interim award, save and except that such an award must relate to any matter with respect to which the Arbitral Tribunal may make a final arbitral award, the aforesaid submission premised on the determination of an issue that has been framed or arises for consideration, cannot be acceded to. The true test would be, whether the parties are at issue over a particular matter in respect of which the Arbitral Tribunal is called upon to make a final arbitral award? If the answer is in the affirmative, then the aspect as to whether an issue is settled for determination or not, pales in significance.”, the court ruled.
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."
Bombay High Court Restrains Parle Agro's Franchisee From Selling SURE Water Competing With BAILLEY
Case Title : Parle Agro Private Limited v. Udayak Agro Products Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
Case Number : Commercial Arbitration Petition (L) No. 25994 of 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 531
The Bombay High Court has granted interim protection to Parle Agro Private Limited in its arbitration dispute with its franchisee Udayak Agro Products Pvt. Ltd. and Udayak's connected entity, K.L. Beverages LLP, over the manufacture and sale of competing packaged drinking water.
Justice Amit Borkar found a prima facie case that the manufacture of SURE water by K.L. Beverages was covered by the indirect competition restrictions in Parle Agro's franchise agreement with Udayak.
The court found that Parle Agro had made out a prima facie case that the competing packaged drinking water activity carried on through K.L. Beverages was covered by the indirect competition restrictions in Udayak Agro's 2014 franchise agreement.
The court observed, “The Court has to see all the material together. If every document is looked at separately, the Respondents may have some explanation for each circumstance. But the combined effect of the material cannot be ignored.”
Case Title : Sunfield Global Pte Limited v. Liberty Investments Private Limited
Case Number : Commercial Arbitration Appeal (L) No. 1634 of 2026 in Commercial Arbitration Petition (L) No. 34540 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 530
On Tuesday, 22 September, the Bombay High Court held that interim relief granted by a foreign arbitral tribunal may be rendered ineffective in India where there is no direct mechanism to enforce such an order.
A Division Bench of Justices A.S. Gadkari and Kamal Khata allowed an appeal by Singapore-based Sunfield Global Pte Limited against Liberty Investments Private Limited, set aside a Single Judge's order refusing interim protection and directed Liberty to secure Sunfield's admitted USD 66,92,500 claim. The judges observed:
“There is a high likelihood of such interim measures or protection being rendered otiose by the time this process is completed, rendering it ineffective altogether. This would involve three distinct rounds of litigation, which would be a cumbersome and wholly inefficacious as compared to approaching this Court in a Section 9 Petition.”
Forgery Allegation Alone No Ground To Reject Plea For Arbitrator Appointment: Bombay High Court
Case Title Kiran Narendra Patkar v. Milan Narendra Patkar and Another
Case Number Commercial Arbitration Application (L) No.23278 of 2026 with Commercial Arbitration Petition (L) No.23009 of 2026
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM)520
The Bombay High Court has held that an allegation that an arbitration agreement was forged does not automatically require rejection of an application for appointment of an arbitrator where independent documents provide a prima facie basis for the agreement's existence.
Justice Amit Borkar appointed Advocate Ranjeev Carvalho as sole arbitrator to decide the Patkar House redevelopment dispute between developer Kiran Narendra Patkar and Milan Narendra Patkar. All objections concerning the agreement's execution, genuineness, and enforceability were left open for the arbitrator.
The Court found that a registered will and a later gift deed referred to the redevelopment transaction. These documents provided sufficient prima facie material to permit arbitration, although the respondents remained free to prove their forgery allegations before the tribunal.
The court observed: “The submission based upon Rajia Begum succeeds only to a limited extent. I accept that where the arbitration agreement is alleged to be forged, the Court has to consider that objection as a jurisdictional issue. However, I do not accept that merely raising such an allegation requires rejection of the Section 11 Application. The real test is whether the material makes the non-existence of the arbitration agreement so clear that arbitration cannot be allowed to start. In the present case, that position is not reached.”
Case Title SAP India Private Limited Versus Cox and Kings Limited
Case Number COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 865 OF 2026
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 522
The Bombay High Court on 10 September extended the mandate of an arbitral tribunal headed by former Supreme Court judge Justice Madan Lokur by one year and allowed SAP India Private Limited's pending claim against Cox & Kings to proceed.
A Bench of Justice Arif S. Doctor found that the delay in completing the arbitration was not attributable to any deliberate, wilful or negligent default by SAP or the tribunal. He observed:
“The delay in completion of the arbitral proceedings before the Justice Lokur Tribunal cannot, in the facts of the present case, be attributed to any deliberate, wilful or negligent default on the part of the Petitioner, much less of the Tribunal. In these circumstances, to permit the mandate to lapse without affording the Petitioner an opportunity to have its pending claim adjudicated would, in my view, defeat rather than advance the underlying object of the arbitral process.”
120-Day Written Statement Period Must Be Computed Under General Clauses Act: Bombay High Court
Case Title Jyoti Structures Limited vs Africa Power Company CC
Case Number WRIT PETITION NO. 10803 OF 2026
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 523
The Bombay High Court on 7 September held that whether the 120-day period for filing a written statement in a commercial suit has expired must be determined by correctly computing the period under Section 9 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, and not by applying a strict or liberal construction of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
Justice N. J. Jamadar allowed Jyoti Structures Ltd.'s writ petition against Africa Power Company CC and set aside the Commercial Court's 18 June 2026 order rejecting its application to condone the alleged one-day delay in filing the written statement. The Bench observed:
“However, the question as to whether the period of 120 days has expired or not, is not a matter of strict or liberal construction of the provisions of the Act, 2015. It is simply a matter of computation of the period, applying the well established principle incorporated in Section 9 of the Act, 1897, in the matter of computation of time. The strict construction of the provisions contained in the Act, 2015, does not imply that, the provisions of the Act, 2015, shall not be correctly construed. In other words, the strict construction cannot be equated with an erroneous interpretation of the provisions.”
Bombay High Court Condones 530-Day Delay In Foreign Award Enforcement Amid Limitation Uncertainty
Case Title China Fortune Corporation Limited v. Gandhar Oil Refinery India Limited
Case Number nterim Application (L) No. 19323 of 2026 in Commercial Arbitration Petition No. 499 of 2021
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 514
The Bombay High Court has condoned a 530-day delay in seeking enforcement of a foreign arbitral award, holding that the uncertainty over the limitation period applicable to enforcement of foreign awards constituted sufficient cause for the delay.
Justice Arif S. Doctor observed that the delay arose from “the lack of clarity in the law at the time regarding the applicable period of limitation for the enforcement of a foreign award” and not from ignorance or misunderstanding of the law.
The court held that, in these circumstances, depriving China Fortune Corporation Limited of its right to seek enforcement would be “wholly unconscionable”.
Case Title : Zee Learn Limited v. Pragati Shiksha Shrot Trust
Case Number : COMM ARBITRATION PETITION (L) NO.21131 OF 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 472
On 1 September, the Bombay High Court restrained a Dehradun-based school from using the “MOUNT LITERA ZEE SCHOOL” and “MLZS” marks and the MLZS Program pending arbitration.
Justice Amit Borkar partly allowed a petition filed by Zee Learn Limited seeking interim relief against Pragati Shiksha Shrot Trust, Dehradun, pending arbitral proceedings. He held that a former licensee cannot continue using a licensor's mark after termination of the licence agreements. He observed:
“Pending commencement and adjudication of the arbitral proceedings between the Petitioner and the Respondent, the Respondent, its servants, agents, assigns, and all persons claiming through or under the Respondent are restrained from conducting or representing any business, school or educational programme under the name and style of “MOUNT LITERA ZEE SCHOOL” or “MLZS”, or under any mark or name which is deceptively or phonetically similar thereto.”
Interim Return Of Property Can Support Arbitration Without Granting Final Relief: Bombay High Court
Case Title : Limited Liability Company “LTB" vs Shri Vaibhavi Logistics & Ors
Case Number : COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION PETITION (L) NO.24421 OF 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 502
The Bombay High Court on 27 August held that directing the return of property as an interim measure does not amount to granting final relief where the direction is intended to protect and support arbitral proceedings.
Justice Amit Borkar partly allowed a petition filed by Limited Liability Company “LTB” seeking interim protection in respect of its tank containers and directed their release, while leaving the parties' substantive claims open for appropriate proceedings. He held:
“I do not accept the submission that directing return of the tanks would amount to granting final relief. Section 9 relief is intended to support the arbitration and is not meant to finally decide the entire dispute. But an interim direction for return or protection of property does not, for that reason, become a final order.”
IBC Resolution Ends Pre-Resolution Claims, Arbitration Cannot Continue: Bombay High Court
Case Title : JSW Steel Ltd vs Delta Iron & Steel Co. Pvt. Ltd. & Ors
Case Number : INTERIM APPLICATION NO.542 OF 2019 IN COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION PETITION NO.1558 OF 2019
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 504
The Bombay High Court has recently held that once a corporate debtor is resolved under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, there is no residual cause of action from a pre-resolution claim that can be pursued through arbitration or Section 9 proceedings.
Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan observed that the insolvency resolution process brings such claims to an end, whether the creditor recovers some, none or all of the amount claimed.
The court held, “That a corporate debtor who is resolved under the IBC starts with a clean slate, is now well declared in numerous judgements. Causes of action against the corporate debtor prior to resolution would come to an end with the assessment and determination of claims under the resolution process. A creditor may recover some or none or all of the debt claimed from and owed to it by the corporate debtor. Regardless of how much is recovered, there would be no residual cause of action to agitate. Arbitration agreements governing such discharged causes of action would not be available to give any continued life to the Section 9 jurisdiction.”
Case Title : Vikas Babulal Khandelwal v. Shree Krishna Sai Development Corporation & Ors.
Case Number : Commercial Arbitration Petition (L) No. 25100 of 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 496
The Bombay High Court has held that an authority letter allowing a partner to “deal” with partnership property cannot by itself be treated as a blanket power to sell or transfer the firm's immovable properties.
The court observed that the authority letters gave the partner “authority of some substance”, but did not confer an unrestricted power to sell or transfer the firm's immovable properties.
Justice Amit Borkar, while deciding a plea under the Arbitration Act seeking interim relief observed:
“Depending upon the transaction, this expression may cover documents required for completing the transaction. But it cannot be treated as giving a blanket power to sell or transfer all properties of the Firm. The expression has to be understood with reference to the property identified in the Authority Letter, the transaction contemplated and the purpose for which the authority was given. Its scope cannot be enlarged beyond what the document, when read as a whole, reasonably permits.”
Case Title : The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. M/s. Atul Raj Builders Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : Arbitration Petition No. 264 of 1998
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 492
The Bombay High Court has reiterated that the limitation for challenging an arbitral award under the Arbitration Act, 1940, need not remain paused until formal court notice is issued if the party is otherwise aware of the award.
Relying on apex court rulings, the court ruled,
“The precise form of what constitutes as a 'notice' of filing the Award is unspecified. However, interpreted reasonably, what must be required is that the parties come to know about the existence of the Award so that any objections to it may be filed. What appears from the usage of the word 'notice' is that the parties merely reach a state of awareness about the Award and plan their next steps accordingly, and not the imposition of another procedural step. If the literal interpretation is taken and limitation is paused until a formal notice is issued by the Court, it would allow a party otherwise aware of the Award to sit over the Award and delay filing objections. This would undercut the speedy intent governing arbitration," the court ruled.
Delhi High Court
Case Title : Sugat Jain v. Amit Jain & Anr. (with connected matter)
Case Number : ARB.P. 1461/2026 & O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 298/2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 889
The Delhi High Court on 21 August held that a party's reasonable time to appoint an arbitrator cannot be assessed merely by counting the days after a formal arbitration notice, and that courts must also consider earlier litigation, failed mediation and attempts to agree on an arbitrator.
Justice Om Prakash Shukla rejected a prematurity objection in a family partnership dispute and appointed former Supreme Court Judge Justice (Retd.) Ravindra Bhat as sole arbitrator to adjudicate disputes between Sugat Jain, Amit Jain and another family member concerning Aero Enterprises. The Bench observed:
“In view of this court, what constitutes a reasonable time must necessarily depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. It cannot be determined by mechanically counting the number of days elapsed after the formal notice under Section 21 is sent. Where the parties had already been engaged in disputes, court proceedings, mediation and discussion concerning appointment of an Arbitrator, those circumstances must legitimately be taken into account while considering whether the agreed appointment procedure has failed.”
Case Title : August Purple Services Private Limited & Anr. v. Axis Trustee Services Limited & Ors.
Case Number : FAO(OS) (COMM) 224/2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 891
On 20 August, a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court set aside a Single Judge's order appointing a retired Supreme Court judge as sole arbitrator to resolve disputes between August Purple Services Private Limited, Axis Trustee Services Limited and other parties, after both sides agreed that the arbitration was an international commercial arbitration.
Justices C. Hari Shankar and Vinod Kumar observed that an arbitration becomes an international commercial arbitration where one of the parties is based outside India. Therefore, the High Court did not have jurisdiction to appoint an arbitrator, as such power rests with the Supreme Court. They stated:
“The contention that the arbitration would be an international commercial arbitration is predicated on the fact that one of the parties to the arbitral proceedings, viz. Ace Turtle Global Pte Ltd, is based in Singapore. We find this to be correct. In any case, on the fact that the arbitration would be an international commercial arbitration, learned Counsel are, as we have already noted, ad idem.”
“That being so, this Court could not have appointed an arbitrator to arbitrate on the dispute.”
Delhi High Court Says Writ Courts Should Not Pre-empt MSMED Arbitration, Dismisses BSNL Plea
Case Title General Manager Telecom District Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd v. Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council and Others
Case Number W.P.(C) 12298/2026
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 888
On 26 August, the Delhi High Court dismissed a petition filed by the General Manager, Telecom District, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL), challenging the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council's (MSEFC) reference of a dispute to the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC) and the consequential arbitration proceedings.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma held that writ courts should not pre-emptively interfere with arbitration proceedings under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (MSMED Act) merely because a party challenges the maintainability of a claim or the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal, when such objections can be raised before the tribunal itself. She observed:
“The aforesaid objections essentially relate to the maintainability of the claim and the jurisdiction of the forum constituted under the MSMED Act. However, merely because an objection relates to the jurisdiction of the Arbitral Tribunal, the same would not, by itself, justify exercise of jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, particularly when such objection can be raised before and considered by the learned Arbitral Tribunal under the statutory scheme governing arbitration.”
Closure of Interim Pleas for Non-Payment of Arbitral Fees Not Appealable: Delhi High Court
Case Title : Orbit In-Te-Rio v. American Epay Services Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : ARB. A. (COMM.) 53/2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 868
The Delhi High Court on 18 August held that an arbitral tribunal's order closing a party's interim relief applications and counterclaim for non-payment of arbitral fees is procedural and does not amount to an order granting or refusing interim relief appealable under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Justice Om Prakash Shukla dismissed as non-maintainable the appeal filed by Orbit In-Te-Rio against American Epay Services Pvt. Ltd., while granting the former liberty to seek recall of the closure order before the arbitral tribunal. The Bench observed:
“It is clear from the above that the impugned order is procedural in nature and consequently, appropriate remedy was to seek re-call of the impugned order since, the impugned direction does not fall within the express language of Section 37(2)(b), which permits an appeal from an order 'granting or refusing to grant an interim measure under Section 17'.”
No Basis To Retain Bank Guarantees After Arbitral Award Is Settled: Delhi High Court
Case Title Union of India v. M/s ANS Construction Ltd.
Case Number O.M.P. (COMM) 373/2019 & I.A. 12632/2019; O.M.P. (COMM) 377/2019 & I.A. 12702/2019
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 851
The Delhi High Court has held that once an arbitral award resolving the main contractual dispute is settled between the parties and the settlement amount is paid, there is no basis for retaining or seeking to invoke performance bank guarantees, security deposits, or fixed deposit receipts (FDRs) furnished under the contract.
Justice Tushar Rao Gedela observed, “If that be so, then once the main claims in respect of the dispute arising out of the contract between the parties is adjudicated and subsequently the arbitral award is settled between parties, there is no reason as to why and on what basis the performance bank guarantees, security deposits, FDRs in respect thereto, can be retained or sought to be invoked by the petitioner.”
The court made the observation while dismissing two petitions filed by the Union of India under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, challenging an April 5, 2019, arbitral award in favour of ANS Construction Ltd.
Case Title : Transtonnelstroy Afcons JV Chennai Metro Limited v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited
Case Number : O.M.P. (COMM) 193/2022
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 848
The Delhi High Court has partly set aside an arbitral award after finding that the majority tribunal had relied on pre-contract cover notes and discussions to alter the terms of an executed insurance policy.
Justice Om Prakash Shukla held that the tribunal could not travel beyond the policy and insert terms that were not part of the executed contract.
The court observed, “The majority members of the Tribunal acceded their jurisdiction by travelling beyond the executed policy to insert words based on a precontract cover notes. An Arbitral Tribunal is a creature of the contract and cannot rewrite explicit contractual provisions."
Case Title : Ratnagiri Gas and Power Pvt. Ltd. v. Dinowic Pte Ltd.
Case Number : O.M.P. (COMM) 534/2019 & I.A. 18412/2019, I.A. 18414/2019
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 842
The Delhi High Court on 17 August dismissed Ratnagiri Gas and Power Private Limited's challenge to an arbitral award directing it to refund USD 714,760.74 with 6% simple interest to Singapore-based Dinowic Pte Ltd. in a dispute concerning the sale and lifting of Naphtha from Dabhol, Maharashtra.
A Bench comprising Justice Mini Pushkarna held that the scope of interference under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is narrower in an international commercial arbitration, and that a challenge to an arbitral tribunal's interpretation of contractual terms cannot be raised on the ground of “patent illegality”. She observed:
“The ground of 'patent illegality' in Sub-Section (2-A) of Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, cannot be sustained in case of International Commercial Arbitration. Further, any challenge to an award in respect of construction of terms of a contract by an Arbitral Tribunal falls under 'patent illegality', and is no longer available as a ground of challenge of an award arising out of an International Commercial Arbitration.”
Case Title: Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. v. Fitwell Constructions
Case Number : O.M.P. (COMM) 292/2023
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 840
The Delhi High Court recently reiterated that an employee of a party to a dispute cannot appoint an arbitrator on its behalf under amended Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Section 12(5) makes persons having certain relationships with a party or the dispute ineligible to act as arbitrators. The restriction can be waived only through an express written agreement between the parties after the dispute has arisen.
The court referred to the Supreme Court's rulings in Bhadra International (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Airports Authority of India and Central Organisation for Railway Electrification v. ECI SPIC SMO MCML (JV) on the ineligibility of arbitrators and equal participation in the appointment process.
Relying on these principles, Justice Avneesh Jhingan observed, "After amendment of Section 12(5) of the Act an employee of a party in dispute can neither be appointed arbitrator nor can nominate or appoint any other person as an arbitrator. The unilateral appointment in absence of an express agreement in writing between the parties to waive applicability of Section 12(5) of the Act is void ab initio. The filing of the statement of claim or participation in the arbitral proceedings cannot be construed as waiver under the proviso to Section 12(5) of the Act."
Delhi High Court Upholds ₹46.92 Lakh Bajaj Electricals Arbitral Award Against ITDC
Case Title : India Tourism Development Corporation v. M/s Bajaj Electricals Ltd.
Case Number : O.M.P. (COMM) 404/2019 & I.A. No. 13516/2019
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 841
The Delhi High Court on 17 August upheld the arbitral award directing India Tourism Development Corporation (ITDC) to pay Bajaj Electricals Ltd. Rs. 46.92 lakh along with pre-award, pendente lite and future interest, finding that the arbitrator had based the findings on the evidence and contractual terms on record.
Justice Mini Pushkarna noted that courts cannot interfere with an arbitral tribunal's interpretation of a contract under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, merely because another interpretation is possible. She observed:
“If the Contract and the liabilities therein have been interpreted by the learned Arbitrator in a certain way, then the same would not be re-examined by this Court, in a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. Considering the narrow scope of judicial interference in a petition under Section 34, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the conclusion arrived at by the learned Arbitrator."
Delhi High Court Says Consent Awards Open To Challenge, Upholds Award In BDR Builders Dispute
Case Title : Lalit Modi v. BDR Builders and Developers Private Limited
Case Number : O.M.P. 7/2017 & EX.P. 69/2017
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 855
The Delhi High Court on 18 August dismissed a property owner's challenge to a consent arbitral award directing specific performance of an agreement to sell his Vasant Vihar property in favour of BDR Builders and Developers Private Limited.
Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, however, held that a consent arbitral award, though subject to a narrower scope of interference, can be challenged under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to examine whether the settlement was lawful, whether consent was vitiated by fraud, coercion or undue influence, or whether any other statutory ground for setting aside the award was made out. The Bench observed:
“While the scope of interference with an award on agreed terms is undoubtedly narrower than that applicable to an adjudicatory award, there is no statutory embargo under the A&C Act against maintaining a petition under Section 34 merely because the award is a consent award. The distinction lies not in the maintainability of the challenge but in the limited nature of the scrutiny to be undertaken.”
Common Arbitrators Must Explain Contradictory Views In Related Disputes: Delhi High Court
Case Title : Ssangyong Engineering and Construction Co. Ltd. v. National Highways Authority of India
Case Number : FAO(OS) (COMM) 132/2024 & FAO(OS) (COMM) 136/2024
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 835
The Delhi High Court has held that, in peculiar circumstances involving common arbitrators and identical contractual provisions, an unexplained departure from an earlier view in a related dispute can justify interference with an arbitral award.
“The common members of the Arbitral Tribunal are obliged to justify the different view being taken by them in the subsequently passed impugned Award.”, the bench ruled.
A Division Bench comprising Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora made the observation while upholding the setting aside of an award in a dispute between Ssangyong Engineering and Construction Co. Ltd. and the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI).
“Consistency, certainty and predictability are recognized as the hallmarks of a sound justice delivery system. The intent which ordinarily parties have while selecting common members of Tribunals for adjudicating disputes arising between the same parties, in related disputes, is to ensure that parties receive consistent decisions from the arbitral tribunal.”, the court observed.
Case Title : Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. v. HCC Samsung JV
Case Number: FAO(OS) (COMM) 74/2025, CM APPL. 25351/2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 836
The Delhi High Court on Monday observed that it was difficult to believe that an organisation such as the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC) did not know the fundamentals of Section 33 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The court called DMRC's application seeking correction of the arbitral award a “classic case of misuse of Section 33”. It observed that the application may have been intended to obtain “breathing space” to challenge the substantive award.
A Division Bench comprising Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla also imposed ₹5 lakh in costs on DMRC for misusing Section 33.
The amount has to be paid to HCC Samsung JV within 12 weeks from the date of the judgment.
“It is not possible for us to believe that an organization such as the appellant did not know the fundamentals of Section 33 and what is permitted thereunder. This, therefore, is a classic case of misuse of Section 33, perhaps with a view to obtain breathing space to launch the challenge to the substantive award,” the bench observed.
Delhi High Court Orders Omaxe To Refund ₹3.35 Crore After Developer Stopped Assured Returns
Case Title : Omaxe Ltd. v. Mr. Joginder Singh Nijjar & Anr.
Case Number : FAO(OS) (COMM) 236/2023 & CM APPL. 55402/2023
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 834
The Delhi High Court has upheld an arbitral award directing Omaxe Ltd. to refund ₹3.35 crore to two co-allottees of a commercial unit in Omaxe Novelty Mall at Lawrence Road, Amritsar.
A Division Bench of Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora also upheld the interest awarded by the tribunal and ₹25 lakh in costs. It further imposed ₹2 lakh in costs on Omaxe, payable equally to the two co-allottees within two weeks.
The court ruled that Omaxe could not compel the co-allottees to continue with the allotment after it had stopped paying the assured monthly returns. “Having itself discontinued payment of the assured returns, the Appellant forfeited any right to compel the Respondents to continue with the allotment and accept possession,” the court observed.
Delhi High Court Upholds Award Setting Aside ₹8.55 Crore DoT Demand Against Sterlite Technologies
Case Title : Union of India, Through Secretary, Department of Telecommunications, Ministry of Communications, Govt. of India v. Sterlite Technologies Limited
Case Number : O.M.P. (COMM) 395/2023
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 817
The Delhi High Court has upheld an arbitral award in favour of Sterlite Technologies Limited, rejecting the Union government's challenge to an award that had set aside a ₹8.55 crore demand raised by the Department of Telecommunications (DoT).
Justice Avneesh Jhingan ruled that the arbitrator's finding that Sterlite provided only passive telecom infrastructure, rather than unlicensed end-to-end bandwidth services.
This, according to the court, was a plausible view that did not warrant interference under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
“The view taken by the arbitrator is plausible and suffers from no legal or factual error, much less perversity, and no interference is called for,” the court observed.
Case Title : Union of India v. Goodrich Foodtech Ltd.
Case Number: O.M.P. (COMM) 375/2022 & connected applications
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 799
The Delhi High Court has set aside a ₹6.35 crore arbitral award in favour of Goodrich Foodtech Ltd. in a dispute with the Ministry of Defence over contracts for supplying malted milk food with cocoa.
Justice Subramonium Prasad held that the unilateral appointment of the arbitrator by the Union through its Competent Financial Authority was invalid under Section 12(5) read with the Seventh Schedule of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The court found that the authority was part of the Ministry of Defence and an official of the Union of India, which was itself a party to the dispute.
The court observed, “the arbitrator shall be appointed by the Competent Financial Authority, who is a part of the Ministry of Defence, and thus, an official of the Petitioner/Union of India, who is a party to the dispute herein and as such, not qualified to appoint an arbitrator.”
Case Title : Vantage Integrated Securities Solution Pvt. Ltd. v. Spark Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : FAO (COMM) 203/2026 and CM APPL. 47883/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 792
The Delhi High Court on 5 August upheld an award directing Vantage Integrated Securities Solution Pvt. Ltd. to pay Rs. 9.92 lakh to Spark Technologies Pvt. Ltd., holding that the former's unilateral notice stating that it would recover any liquidated damages imposed by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) from the latter did not create a binding contractual obligation.
A Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetrapal and Shail Jain noted that liquidated damages imposed by a party's client under a separate contract cannot be recovered from a supplier unless the supplier had expressly accepted such liability under their own agreement. It observed:
“The said communication merely conveyed the Appellant's apprehension that liquidated damages might be imposed by the RBI and its intention to recover the same from the Respondent. Such communication neither formed part of the Purchase Order nor constituted a contractual stipulation governing the rights and liabilities of the parties. More importantly, there is nothing on record to indicate that the Respondent accepted the said stipulation or that the parties mutually agreed to modify the contractual terms.”
Delhi High Court Says Final Relief Can Be Granted At Interim Stage If Strong Prima Facie Case Exists
Case Title : Asian Hotels North Limited v. Exclusive Capital Limited & Ors.
Case Number : CS(COMM) 376/2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 796
The Delhi High Court has granted Asian Hotels North Limited what was effectively the final relief sought in a dispute over loan security documents by directing DBS Bank India Limited to release the original title deeds and other security documents of the Hyatt Regency Hotel.
The relief was made conditional on Asian Hotels depositing Exclusive Capital Limited's entire disputed claim of ₹159.66 crore with the court, thereby securing its monetary claim pending adjudication.
Exempting Asian Hotels from mandatory pre-institution mediation in view of the urgency arising from its ₹300 crore financing, the Court held that interim relief may, in exceptional cases, amount to granting the final relief itself.
Justice Vikas Mahajan observed, "Under certain circumstances the court may grant an interim relief though it amounts to granting the final relief itself. The law in this regard is well settled that where very strong prima facie case is shown to exist, besides the balance of convenience and irreparable injury forcefully tilting the balance of the case totally in favour of the applicant, such a relief can be granted. The court would grant such an interim relief only if satisfied that withholding of it would prick the conscience of the court and do violence to the sense of justice, resulting in injustice being perpetuated throughout the hearing, and at the end the court would not be able to vindicate the cause of justice."
Case Title: Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. v. National Hydro Electric Power Corporation Ltd.
Case Number : EX.APPL.(OS) 1025/2024 in OMP (ENF.) (COMM.) 87/2018
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 780
The Delhi High Court on 28 July held that interim payments released under NITI Aayog's relief scheme for construction contractors during the pendency of challenges to arbitral awards cannot alter the legal method of adjusting payments once the award attains finality.
Justice Subramonium Prasad directed National Hydro Electric Power Corporation Ltd. (NHPC) to pay Rs. 16.39 crore to Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. (HCC) after adjusting the amounts already paid under the scheme, holding that such payments could not be treated as an agreement between the parties to depart from the law governing adjustment of award amounts. He observed:
“Once the Award has attained finality then the amount under the Award has to be paid in accordance with the law laid down by the Apex Court in Leela Hotels Ltd. (supra) in execution proceedings after adjusting the amounts already received under the OMs. It cannot be said that any correspondence made regarding OMs issued by NITI Aayog would result in any agreement to the contrary as alleged by the Judgment Debtor.”
Delhi High Court Holds Future O&M Claims Beyond Scope, Partly Quashes Louis Berger-COWI JV Award
Case Title : National Highways Authority of India v. The Louis Berger Group Inc. JV with M/s COWI A/S
Case Number: O.M.P. (COMM) 351/2023 and I.A. 17160/2023
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 779
The Delhi High Court on Monday, 3 August, held that an arbitral tribunal cannot award operation and maintenance charges for services that had not fallen due on the date of the award.
Justice Avneesh Jhingan partly allowed the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI)'s petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and partly set aside an award granting Rs. 5.16 crore and USD 60,769 with interest to The Louis Berger Group Inc.-COWI A/S joint venture. He held:
“Relief cannot be granted on an apprehension and for services yet to be rendered for which no amount was due on the date of passing of the award. The award to that extent travels beyond the scope of submission to arbitration and falls within the ambit of Section 34(2)(a)(iv) of the Act.”
Deposit Made To Stay Arbitral Award Is Security, Not Payment To Award-Holder: Delhi High Court
Case Title : McNally Bharat Engineering Company Limited v. Metso India Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number: O.M.P. (COMM) 362/2018
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 777
The Delhi High Court has held that depositing money in court as a condition for staying an arbitral award does not alter ownership of the amount.
It ruled that such a deposit remains only a form of security and creates no unconditional right in favour of the decree holder.
A single bench of Justice Avneesh Jhingan observed that the decree holder acquires no vested right over the money merely because it has been deposited in court.
"There is no vested right created in favour of the decree holder for unconditional receipt of the amount deposited in the court. The deposit continues to remain in the form of security," the court ruled.
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.”
Appointing Arbitrator Unilaterally Does Not Amount To Waiving Ineligibility: Delhi High Court
Case Title : M/s Ahluwalia Contracts (India) Limited (ACIL) v. Airports Authority of India (AAI)
Case Number : FAO(OS) (COMM) 246/2026, CM APPL. 61809/2026 & CM APPL. 61810/2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 1017
The Delhi High Court has held that a party's unilateral appointment of an arbitrator cannot by itself amount to an express waiver of the arbitrator's statutory ineligibility under Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
A Division Bench of Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Vimal Kumar Yadav upheld the setting aside of an arbitral award partly in favour of Ahluwalia Contracts (India) Limited (ACIL), despite the Airports Authority of India (AAI) having appointed the arbitrator and participated in the arbitration for nearly four years.
The court observed, “The mere fact that the appointment was made by AAI does not amount to an express agreement in writing by both parties to waive the applicability of Section 12(5) of the A&C Act. The act of appointment and the statutory waiver contemplated by the proviso operate in distinct fields and cannot be equated with each other.”
Case Title : Hindustan Shipyard Limited Versus M/S Anadolu Deniz Insaat Kizaklari Sanayi Ve Ticaret A.S. & Anr.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 1008/2026, I.A. 25198/2026, I.A. 25199/2026 & I.A. 25200/2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 996
The Delhi High Court on 18 September directed that arbitral proceedings initiated by Turkish company Anadolu Deniz against Hindustan Shipyard Limited (HSL) before the Indian Council of Arbitration (ICA) be kept in abeyance.
Justice Tushar Rao Gedela passed the direction on HSL's application for interim protection after finding prima facie that the Union Government's decision to exclude Anadolu Deniz from a project for construction of Fleet Support Ships for the Indian Navy was a sovereign decision concerning national security and defence procurement, and therefore non-arbitrable. The Bench observed:
“Surely, if internal security is a sovereign function, then national security, and matters related to defence procurement for the armed forces would clearly fall within the expression “sovereign function”, and the decision taken in such context could be expressed as “sovereign decision”...Having regard to the above analysis and facts, it is clear that the decision of the GoI dated 23.08.2023 is a “decision of the Sovereign”, and in view of the ratio in Vidya Drolia (supra), “non arbitrable”, per se.”
Case Title : Vipsie Hospitalitys Pvt. Ltd. v. Walianet
Case Numbe : CM(M) 1573/2023 & CM APPL. 30269/2024
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 1000
The Delhi High Court on 16 September directed the court which heard Vipsie Hospitalitys Pvt. Ltd.'s challenge to an arbitral award to decide its application seeking perjury proceedings over allegedly forged documents within three months.
Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora held that Vipsie had correctly filed the Section 340 Cr.P.C. application before the court hearing its Section 34 petition against the arbitral award in its dispute with Walianet. The Court also settled that court's jurisdiction to hear the application. The Bench observed:
“In the considered opinion of this Court, the liberty granted to the Petitioner to seek initiation of appropriate proceedings for perjury against the authorized representative of the Respondent, post conclusion of the arbitration proceedings, have been correctly initiated, by the Petitioner, by filing Section 340 Cr.P.C. application before the Court hearing Section 34 petition under the Act of 1996 i.e., in OMP(COMM) 24/2023.”
Unable To Pay Arbitration Fees? Law Provides No Waiver On Financial Grounds: Delhi High Court
Case Title : Rajesh Kumar v. Union of India & Ors.; M/s Sri Export Co. v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 13882/2026 & W.P.(C) 13884/2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 999
The Delhi High Court has ruled that an arbitral tribunal cannot ordinarily be required to continue adjudicating a claim or counter-claim when the requisite deposit towards arbitration costs has not been paid.
“The statutory scheme, therefore, recognises that an Arbitral Tribunal cannot ordinarily be required to continue adjudicating upon a claim or counter-claim in the absence of the requisite deposit towards the costs of such proceedings,” Justice Amit Mahajan ruled.
The ruling came while dismissing petitions by Rajesh Kumar and Sri Export Co. They had sought waiver or deferment of their share of arbitrator's fees and Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC) administrative charges in separate arbitrations.
Maritime Arbitrator's Prior Ruling On Similar Clause Does Not Establish Bias: Delhi High Court
Case Title : Steel Authority of India Limited v. British Marine PLC
Case Number : FAO(OS) (COMM) 17/2026 & CM APPL. 6374/2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 994
The Delhi High Court on 17 September held that an arbitrator does not become disqualified merely because they previously decided a similar issue in another maritime arbitration involving one of the parties, particularly where specialised maritime disputes draw from a limited pool of domain experts.
A Division Bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Vikas Mahajan upheld the arbitral award in favour of UK-based British Marine PLC and dismissed Steel Authority of India Limited's (SAIL) appeal against a Single Judge's order upholding the award. The Bench held:
“A maritime contract by its very nature requires domain knowledge for quick adjudication. Merely because an Arbitrator has served in another maritime arbitration which involves interpretation of the same or a similar clause by itself cannot raise justifiable doubts as to the independence or impartiality of an Arbitrator.”
Prior Negotiations Cannot Add Arbitration Clause To Signed Contract: Delhi HIgh Court
Case Title : SARR Freights Corporation & Anr. v. Argo Coral Maritime Ltd.
Case Number: FAO(OS) 40/2026 & CM APPL. 19846/2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 993
The Delhi High Court has recently held that prior negotiations and correspondence cannot be used to add an arbitration clause to a clear and unambiguous agreement signed by the parties.
A Division Bench of Justice Vivek Chaudhary and Justice Renu Bhatnagar observed, “It is only where the language is not clear, ambiguous or defective that the surrounding circumstances or other evidence may be looked into, to explain or supply its meaning. The Court is, therefore, barred from relying upon prior negotiations, correspondence or communications to contradict, vary, add to or subtract, from clear and unambiguous terms of the written agreement. The true construction of the contract must depend upon the import of the words used therein, and the intention of the parties is to be ascertained from the language of the agreement itself.”
Pre-Named Arbitrator Can Constitute Tribunal Only If Mutual Consent Continues: Delhi High Court
Case Title Matsya Fincap Pvt. Ltd. v. Mohd Hassinuddin
Case Number FAO (COMM) 221/2024
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 974
On 16 September, the Delhi High Court held that naming an arbitrator in an arbitration agreement may reflect the parties' mutual and continuing consent to his appointment. However, where one party alone appoints the named arbitrator after a dispute arises, the appointment must satisfy the safeguards under Section 12(5) read with the Seventh Schedule to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
A Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetrapal and Shail Jain dismissed Matsya Fincap Pvt. Ltd.'s appeal and upheld the Commercial Court's order setting aside an ex-parte arbitral award in its favour against guarantor Mohd. Hassinuddin. The judges held:
“A named arbitrator may validly constitute the tribunal where the designation itself represents the parties' mutual and continuing consent to such constitution. However, where the record demonstrates that one party alone invokes the clause and appoints the named person after the dispute has arisen, the Court is required to examine the appointment in the context of the statutory safeguards contained in the A&C Act.”
Two-Year Delay In Pronouncing Arbitral Award Not Enough To Set It Aside: Delhi High Court
Case Title Unison Hotels Private Limited v. IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Limited
Case Number FAO(OS) (COMM) 29/2026 & CM APPL. 11008/2026
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 975
The Delhi High Court has held that a two-year delay in pronouncing an arbitral award cannot, by itself, be a ground to set aside the award unless the delay is unexplained and is shown to have adversely affected the findings.
A Division Bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Vinod Kumar made the observation while setting aside a single judge's order.
The order had set aside a ₹65.12 crore arbitral award in favour of Unison Hotels Private Limited against IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Limited
“Delay in its rendition does not vitiate an arbitral award, unless it is positively demonstrated and held that the delay fatally impacted the findings in the award,” the bench observed.
'Vague Intuition' Of Arbitrator Bias Not Enough To Set Aside Award: Delhi High Court
Case Title M/s Lanco-Rani (JV) v. M/s National Highways Authority of India
Case Number OMP(COMM) 145/2017
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 969
The Delhi High Court has recently dismissed a challenge to an arbitral award, holding that a belated suspicion of bias cannot by itself justify interference with an award.
“According to this Court, a vague intuition of biasness at such a belated stage or a simple suspicion by an unhappy party of biasness is not enough to claim biasness, as any such allegation must rest on solid facts, clear evidence, or statutory conflicts,” Justice Om Prakash Shukla held.
The court was hearing a petition filed by Lanco-Rani (JV) under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, challenging a majority arbitral award in its dispute with the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI).
No Separate Signature Needed On Invoice Arbitration Clause If Parties Acted On It: Delhi High Court
Case Title M/s Tinna Rubber and Infrastructure Limited v. Mr. Pankaj Gandhi
Case Number ARB.P. 745/2026 & I.A. 11290/2026; CNR No. DLHC010176142026
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 966
The Delhi High Court on 9 September held that the absence of a separate signature on an arbitration clause printed on the reverse of invoices does not, by itself, negate the existence of an arbitration agreement where the invoices were received and acted upon.
Justice Om Prakash Shukla referred the commercial dispute between Tinna Rubber and Infrastructure Limited and Pankaj Gandhi to arbitration and appointed Advocate Mansvini Jain as the sole arbitrator. The Bench observed:
“The Respondent's principal objection is that the terms contained in Clause 18 of the agreement were never separately signed or accepted by him. However, mere absence of separate signature on the reverse/overleaf of the invoices, in the facts of the present case, does not by itself conclude the issue against the existence of an arbitration agreement.”
Delhi High Court Constitutes Tribunal For D P Jain-NHAI Dispute, Allows Change In SAROD Procedure
Case Title D P Jain Bangalore Chennai Expressways Private Limited v. National Highways Authority of India & Ors.
Case Number O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 385/2026
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 972
The Delhi High Court on 10 September constituted a three-member Arbitral Tribunal to adjudicate disputes between D P Jain Bangalore Chennai Expressways Private Limited and the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) arising from the termination of a Concession Agreement for construction of a section of the Bangalore-Chennai Expressway.
Justice Sachin Datta constituted the Tribunal after both parties jointly agreed to depart from the arbitration procedure prescribed under their agreement, which required disputes to be referred to the Society for Affordable Resolution of Disputes (SAROD). The Bench observed:
“The stipulation in an arbitration agreement as to the institution under whose aegis the arbitration is to be conducted, and as to the manner in which the Arbitral Tribunal is to be constituted, is a matter of contract between the parties and is always open to variation by mutual consent. Where such consent is arrived at in the course of hearing and is recorded in the order of the Court, the arbitration agreement stands modified pro tanto.”
Case Title State Bank of India v. K R Anand
Case Number O.M.P. (COMM) 69/2024 & I.A. 2596/2024
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 965
On 15 September, the Delhi High Court partly set aside an arbitral award in favour of contractor K.R. Anand in a dispute with State Bank of India (SBI) over the construction of 76 residential flats for its officers in Noida.
Justice Avneesh Jhingan noted that an arbitrator cannot award overhead losses using the Emden formula without evidence establishing the actual loss suffered or showing that such loss was difficult or impossible to prove, while upholding some portions of the award while setting aside awards towards overhead expenditure and Price Variation Adjustment (PVA) for the project's third extension. The Bench held:
“However, even on a fair reading of the award as a whole no reason emanates for the arbitrator accepting the calculation based on the Emden formula without there being evidence to prove the loss suffered or that it was difficult or impossible to prove the actual loss suffered. The award of claim no.1 falls within the teeth of Section 31(3) of the Act.”
MSME Registration Cannot Revive Abandoned Arbitration Claims: Delhi High Court
Case Title : Shri Krishan Grit Co. v. Continental Engineering Corporation
Case Number : ARB. A. (COMM) 30/2024 & I.A. 29603/2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 953
The Delhi High Court has ruled that a supplier cannot revive claims abandoned in an earlier arbitration merely by subsequently obtaining registration under the Micro, Small, and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006.
Justice Tushar Rao Gedela observed that a party that did not challenge the termination of the earlier arbitration cannot use subsequent MSME registration to reopen the same claims.
The court held, “Having not availed the same, in the opinion of this Court, a party cannot be permitted to re-open such abandoned claims by mere registration under the MSME Act, 2006, subsequently.”
Delhi High Court Says Failed Conciliation Talks Cannot Be Used To Decide Arbitration Claims
Case Title : Eco Green Buildtech Pvt Ltd v. Vikartan Infrastructure Pvt Ltd
Case Number : O.M.P. (COMM) 293/2023 & I.A. 14489/2023
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 951
The Delhi High Court has ruled that material recorded during unsuccessful conciliation cannot later be relied upon to decide the same dispute in arbitration.
Justice Avneesh Jhingan observed that the confidentiality of such proceedings must continue even after a settlement attempt fails.
“The proceedings during conciliation cannot be considered and relied upon in case the arbitration of dispute is necessitated. The proceedings during conciliation are different but when an issue is contested equal opportunity is to be provided to both the parties to present their case,” the court observed.
It added that when an issue remains contested, both parties must be given an equal opportunity to present their case.
The ruling came in a challenge by Eco Green Buildtech Pvt Ltd against arbitral awards in its dispute with Vikartan Infrastructure Pvt Ltd over construction of the Sikka Kamya Greens project in Sector 10, Greater Noida. The court ultimately set aside both the February 28, 2023 award and March 27, 2023 additional award.
Case Title : Flemingo (DFS) Private Limited v. Airports Authority of India
Case Number : ARB.P. 853/2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 938
The Delhi High Court on 7 September referred a dispute between Flemingo (DFS) Private Limited and the Airports Authority of India (AAI) concerning the operation of duty-free shops at Amritsar Airport to arbitration.
Justice Jasmeet Singh appointed Justice Shalinder Kaur (Retd.) as the sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes, holding that Flemingo's earlier communications did not amount to invocation of arbitration and that its petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was within limitation. The Bench observed:
“In the present case, the notices, which are allegedly the notices invoking arbitration, when read in totality, show that the petitioner is seeking resolution of its grievances and specifically states that in the event the grievances of the petitioner remain unresolved, the petitioner will resort to arbitration and had not invoked Arbitration at that point. Thus, the said notices cannot be construed as notices invoking Arbitration and are merely a communication that enumerates the intention of the petitioner to amicably solve the dispute without resorting to the arbitral clause as envisaged in the Agreement.The notices clearly show that there was no quantification or demand by the petitioner or any rejection of claim by the respondent.”
Delhi High Court Restrains TruCap Finance From Disposing Assets Worth Rs. 1.70 Crore
Case Title : UGRO Capital Limited v. TruCap Finance Limited & Anr.
Case Number : O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 371/2026 & I.A. 23494/2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 936
The Delhi High Court on 1 September restrained TruCap Finance Limited from creating third-party rights or encumbrances over, or disposing of, assets worth up to Rs. 1.70 crore in a dispute with UGRO Capital Limited.
Justice Om Prakash Shukla also appointed Advocate Manisha Suri as the sole arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute arising from a co-lending arrangement between the two non-banking financial companies. The Bench observed:
“Having heard learned Senior counsel for the Petitioner and perused the petition along with the documents annexed thereto, this Court is satisfied that the balance of convenience lies in favour of the Petitioner, and that unless the Petitioner is protected by way of interim measures, the Petitioner would be exposed to irreparable harm inasmuch as any Award that may be passed in the intended arbitration would be reduced to a paper decree.”
Legal Heir Can Challenge Arbitral Award Despite Not Participating In Proceedings: Delhi High Court
Case Title : Faisal Ahmed v. Asian Hotels North Ltd & Anr.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 10751/2026 & CM APPL. 49847/2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 935
The Delhi High Court has held that a legal representative of a deceased party can challenge an arbitral award even if the legal representative did not participate in the arbitration.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma was dealing with a plea by Faisal Ahmed, one of the nine legal heirs of late Sultan Ahmed, who sought to participate in arbitration proceedings concerning his father's rights in a shop at the Hyatt Regency Shopping Arcade, New Delhi.
The court declined to stop the arbitration, which had already reached the stage of final arguments, but held that Faisal and the other legal heirs would have a remedy against the eventual award.
Explaining why Faisal could not be treated as remediless merely because he had not participated in the arbitration, the court relied on the statutory scheme governing legal representatives of deceased parties. It observed that an award can bind persons claiming under a deceased party and that the right to challenge such an award must also be available to them.
“The said remedy would, therefore, also be available to the petitioner and to the other legal heirs of late Sh. Sultan Ahmed. Any grievance regarding want of notice or opportunity to present their case, as well as any other ground available under Section 34 of the A&C Act, can accordingly be raised at the appropriate stage,” Justice Sharma observed.
Case Title : M/s URC Construction (P) Ltd. v. Airports Authority of India
Case Number : OMP (ENF.) (COMM.) 155/2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 922
The Delhi High Court has laid down detailed guidelines to its registry for ensuring compliance with stamp duty and registration requirements in petitions seeking enforcement of domestic arbitral awards.
The directions come after the court held that an inadequately stamped arbitral award cannot be acted upon at the enforcement stage merely because the decree holder subsequently deposits the deficient stamp duty.
Where adequate stamp duty is sought to be paid after the permissible period, the statutory procedure, including impounding and payment of penalty wherever applicable, must be followed.
A Bench of Justice Om Prakash Shukla ruled:
“An insufficiently stamped arbitral award sought to be enforced is to be impounded under Section 33 and dealt with either under Section 35 or 38(2).”
“There is no provision in the Stamp Act which permits Decree Holders to deposit adequate stamp duty on an arbitral award after lapse of one month from its execution unilaterally and without payment of penalty (if applicable).”, it added.
Case Title : Omaxe Ltd. v. Asha Saini
Case Number : FAO (COMM) 53/2022 & FAO (COMM) 91/2022
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 917
The Delhi High Court has ruled that a homebuyer can claim compensation for delayed possession through arbitration even though remedies are also available under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, and the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
“Merely because the Respondent elected to invoke the arbitration agreement instead of pursuing remedies under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 or RERA, it cannot be deprived of compensation otherwise legally payable for delayed possession The substantive right to claim such compensation is founded in Section 55 of the Act of 1872, while the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and RERA statutes provides additional forums and statutory mechanisms for enforcement of that right.,” the court observed.
It held that the substantive right to claim such compensation is founded in Section 55 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, while RERA and the Consumer Protection Act provide additional forums and statutory mechanisms for enforcing that right.
The Division Bench of Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora dismissed two appeals filed by Omaxe Ltd. and upheld arbitral awards in favour of homebuyer Asha Saini. The arbitrator had awarded compensation at 15% per annum for the delay in handing over possession of two flats.
Case Title : Jindal ITF Limited v. NTPC Limited & Anr.
Case Number: FAO(OS) (COMM) 45/2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 916
The Delhi High Court has referred Jindal ITF Limited's dispute with NTPC Limited over an arbitral award worth about ₹1,889 crore to a third judge or a larger Bench after the two judges differed on whether the award should be upheld.
The award arose from disputes over delays and deviations in a project for transporting imported coal to NTPC's Farakka Thermal Power Plant
While Justice C. Hari Shankar upheld the award on claims concerning project delays and shortfalls, the guaranteed supply of coal during the first two years of operations, and damages arising from NTPC's termination of the agreement, Justice Om Prakash Shukla agreed with the Single Judge's decision to set aside the award on those claims.
The bench observed that the disagreement would have to be referred for further consideration.
Delhi High Court Revives Otsuka-Trans Engineers 'NIL' Award, Says Extra Work Claim Was Not Proved
Case Title : Otsuka Chemical (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Trans Engineers India Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : FAO (OS) (COMM) 234/2024
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 908
The Delhi High Court on 1 September restored a “NIL” arbitral award rejecting Trans Engineers India Pvt. Ltd.'s Rs. 28.37 crore claim for additional work in Otsuka Chemical (India) Pvt. Ltd.'s Rs. 71 crore turnkey “Lion Project” for expansion of its chemical manufacturing plant at Kotputli, Rajasthan.
A Division Bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Madhu Jain held that the Single Judge had exceeded the limited scope of review under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 by re-appreciating evidence and substituting the arbitrator's interpretation of the contractual terms with an interpretation it considered more appropriate. The judges held:
“The learned Single Judge, in fact, seems to have proceeded on what would have been a more appropriate interpretation of contractual terms, which, in our respectful opinion, is to travel beyond the scope of scrutiny of an Award under Section 34 of the A&C Act.”
Case Title : Hanson Agro Limited v. GAIL (India) Limited
Case Number : O.M.P. (COMM) 356/2016 & I.A. 9148/2016
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 910
The Delhi High Court has recently ruled that merely filing a challenge to an arbitral award after the 2015 amendments to the arbitration law does not, by itself, make the amended rules on arbitrator eligibility applicable to an arbitration that commenced earlier.
Justice Jasmeet Singh observed that where arbitration proceedings had commenced before October 23, 2015, the validity of the arbitrator's appointment must be examined under the law applicable to those proceedings.
The subsequent amendments cannot be applied retrospectively merely because the award was delivered or challenged after they came into force.
Case Title : DC Multi Modal Park Pvt Ltd v. Maharashtra MMLP Pvt. Ltd & Anr.
Case Number : O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 145/2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 906
The Delhi High Court on 1 September dismissed a second petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 filed by DC Multi Modal Park Pvt. Ltd., after noting that the company had obtained a status quo order without advance-serving the successful bidder, even though it had the bidder's complete contact details.
Justice Tushar Rao Gedela held that advance service in proceedings seeking interim relief is essential to ensure that parties who may be affected by an order get an opportunity to be heard and that neither side gains an unfair procedural advantage. The Bench observed:
“The idea behind rules prescribing advance service is clearly laudable. In that, all parties who may be severely or drastically impacted by any order that might be passed by this Court ought to be afforded an opportunity of hearing so as to ensure a level playing field.”
Case Title : Daiichi Sankyo Company, Limited v. Malvinder Mohan Singh and Ors.
Case Number : EX.APPL.(OS) 3764/2022, EX.APPL.(OS) 1615/2025 & EX.APPL.(OS) 3763/2022 in O.M.P.(EFA)(COMM.) 6/2016
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 900
On 31 August, the Delhi High Court ordered a comprehensive forensic audit into the alleged dissipation of assets involving Fortis Healthcare Limited (FHL), its former promoters Malvinder Mohan Singh and Shivinder Mohan Singh, their downstream entities, and 17 banks and financial institutions.
Justice Subramonium Prasad directed S Ramanand Aiyar & Co. to reconstruct the chain of transactions involving Fortis shares, identify the persons and entities involved, and examine whether Court orders were evaded to frustrate enforcement of a foreign arbitral award in favour of Daiichi Sankyo Company Limited. The Bench observed:
“The conduct of the forensic audit is not an exercise in futility. The forensic audit will pin point the exact manner by which this Court was deceived, the dramatis personae who aided and abetted in evasion of Court Orders by misleading the Court, so that the Court can take steps by fixing liability on the perpetrators of dissipation of shares to ensure that the majesty of law is upheld.”
Orissa High Court
Writ Against Order U/S 37 Arbitration Act Not Barred By Second Appeal Restriction: Orissa High Court
Case Title : State of Odisha and others versus M/s.Dhanurdhar Champatiray, Proprietor and Special Class Contractor, Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar
Case Number : W.P.(C) No.35289, 35291, 35309, 35312, 35317 of 2025 And W.P.(C) No.3223, 44, 6384 & 8151 of 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (ORI) 24
The Orissa High Court on 21 September held that a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution can be maintained against an order passed by a District Judge under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, despite Section 37(3) barring a second appeal.
Justice B.P. Routray rejected the preliminary objection to the maintainability of the writ petitions filed by the state and other, holding that the High Court's constitutional jurisdiction does not constitute a second appellate remedy. The Bench observed:
“it would be incorrect to refuse the Petitioners to approach this Court under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India to challenge the order of the District Judge passed under Section 37(1) of 1996 Act. Thus, the preliminary objection raised by the Opposite Parties with regard to maintainability of the writ petitions in terms of Section 37(3) of 1996 Act is overruled.”
Allahabad High Court
Case Title : M/S S. H. Infratech Pvt. Ltd. Thru. M.D. Mrs. Rabia Khatoon v. Govt. Of U.P. Thru. Chief Engineer, National Highways And Ors.
Case Number : CIVIL MISC. ARBITRATION APPLICATION No. - 56 of 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (ALL) 68
The Allahabad High Court on 20 August held that Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is a default provision that can be invoked only when parties are unable to secure the appointment of an arbitrator through the procedure agreed upon in their contract, and cannot be used to replace an agreed three-member tribunal with a sole arbitrator.
Justice Jaspreet Singh dismissed S. H. Infratech Pvt. Ltd's petition seeking appointment of a sole arbitrator, holding that where a party fails to nominate an arbitrator to fill a vacancy, the remedy lies under Section 11(4), while any failure by the tribunal to conclude proceedings within the prescribed time must be addressed through an application for extension under Section 29-A. The Bench held:
“Section 11(6) is a default clause and only when the parties are unable to get an Arbitrator appointed in terms of the settled and agreed rules, can the default clause come into picture. It does not give any independent right to the court in terms of Section 11 to override the terms of the contract to appoint an Arbitrator.”
Arbitrators Can Decide Contractual Tax Disputes, Not Statutory Tax Issues: Allahabad High Court
Case Title : U.P. Public Works Department, through Chief Engineer, Central Zone, Lucknow v. M/s Vriddhi Infratech India Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : Arbitration Appeal No. 35 of 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (ALL) 61
The Allahabad High Court at Lucknow has recently held that tax disputes between contracting parties, where a party must bear or reimburse a tax, may be resolved through arbitration. However, questions involving statutory tax rates, classification, assessment or quantification remain within the exclusive domain of tax authorities.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Jaspreet Singh partly set aside the GST-related portions of an arbitral award granting over ₹11.35 crore to a road contractor while preserving the finding that the contract was an item-rate contract and the award of ₹66,500 towards the Department's share of the dispute review expert's fee.
The court held that the arbitrator wrongly applied a Ministry of Road Transport and Highways Standard Operating Procedure concerning GST impact on EPC contracts to an item-rate contract, without any contractual provision or evidence making it applicable.
Explaining the limits of an arbitrator's jurisdiction over tax-related disputes, the bench observed:
“The Arbitrator is a creature of contract and its jurisdiction to decide the dispute may be co-extensive with the contract but if it requires any determination relating to tax rates or classification of goods under any particular entry of the taxing statute or the quantum of any tax liability or the adjudication requires referencing to any Executive Tax Notification and Statutory Tax Rates Schedules, then such disputes even though arising out of a contract ceases to be contractual in nature and it metamorphosis into a fiscal regulatory issue. Such issues are governed by the taxing statute which are a complete code in themselves and cannot be subjected to determination by a private forum such as an Arbitral Tribunal.”
State Gets No Special Leeway In Delay Condonation Under Arbitration Act: Allahabad High Court
Case Title : Union of India, Ministry of Railways, Thru. Divisional Railway Manager/Engineer, and 5 Others v. Gallant Ispat Ltd. Thru. General Manager Navneet Jindal
Case Number : APPEAL UNDER SECTION 37 OF ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996 No. - 25 of 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (ALL) 60
The Allahabad High Court on 30 July held that government bodies are not entitled to any special concession under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and that the State and private parties are subject to the same standard for proving “sufficient cause.”
A Division Bench of Justices Rajan Roy and Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary dismissed an appeal filed by the railway authorities against the Commercial Court's refusal to condone a 28 day delay in filing objections to an arbitral award. The judges held:
“Different yard-sticks cannot be employed for a government entity and a private body for deciding an application for condonation of delay. The law of limitation applies in equal force to both the litigating parties. Whether it is a government body or a private, the parties have to show existence of 'sufficient cause' in their favour, before the discretionary power of the court could be triggered for condoning the delay. The said understanding of this court gathers specific significance in the wake of section 18 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, which mandates for equal treatment of the parties.”
Case Title Tentiwala Products Limited v. Manoj Industrial Enterprises
Case Number APPEAL UNDER SECTION 37 OF ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996 No. - 3 of 2026
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC (ALL) 75
The Allahabad High Court has held that an arbitral tribunal's decision rejecting a claim as time-barred is a final arbitral award.
It said that a separate observation terminating the proceedings under Section 32(2)(c) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, was unnecessary and could not be used to deny the claimant a challenge to the award.
Referring to Section 32(2)(c), the bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Kshitij Shailendra held
“The said provision has nothing to do in a case where the Arbitral Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the reference/claim made is barred by limitation. The order, in fact, would be covered by provisions of Section 32(1) of the Act which provide for termination of arbitral proceedings by way of final arbitral award which, in the present case, is on account of the Council coming to the conclusion that the claim made was time barred.”
Kerala High Court
Executing Court Cannot Reject Award Where Parties Mutually Nominated Arbitrator: Kerala High Court
Case Title : M/s Hedge Finance Limited v. Sangeetha A.V
Case Number : OP(C) No. 2206 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(KER) 174
The Kerala High Court on 4 August held that an executing court cannot refuse to enforce an arbitral award on the ground of unilateral appointment of the arbitrator when the parties themselves had mutually nominated the arbitrator in their agreement.
Justice Easwaran set aside an order of the Additional District Court, Kozhikode, which had dismissed an execution petition filed by Hedge Finance Limited to enforce an arbitral award for Rs. 3.47 lakh with 18% interest against Sangeetha A.V. The Bench held:
“In the scheme of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the opposite party, if aggrieved by the award, has to apply for setting aside the same by filing an application under Section 34 of the Act. If the party has not moved any application for setting aside the award, the enquiry under Section 47 of the CPC cannot be enlarged to such an extent, so as to obliterate the award itself unless the award is found to be a nullity.”
Case Title : Avira Tharakan v. Cyriac Njavally
Case Number: AR No. 60 of 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(KER) 166
The Kerala High Court on 14 August held that questions concerning pending proceedings before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) and limitation must be considered by the Arbitral Tribunal at the stage of arbitration, observing that a Court's enquiry under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is primarily confined to the existence of an arbitration agreement.
Justice S. Manu allowed an arbitration request arising from a dispute over 117 equity shares in Tharakan Web Innovations Private Limited and directed the Kerala High Court Arbitration Centre to nominate a sole Arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the parties. He held:
“Section 11(6A) mandates that the referral court shall confine to the examination of the existence of an arbitration agreement.”
Can An Arbitrator Appoint An Advocate Commissioner To Collect Evidence? Kerala High Court Says No
Case Title : DLF Southern Towns Pvt Ltd v. Aditya Deo and Anr
Case Number : OP(C) No. 815 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(KER) 155
The Kerala High Court has ruled that an arbitral tribunal cannot appoint an Advocate Commissioner to collect evidence by invoking its power to grant interim measures under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Justice Easwaran S observed that Section 17 cannot be used to circumvent the limits imposed by Sections 26 and 27 of the Act. "Merely because Section 17 provides power to the arbitrator to grant interim relief, he cannot bypass the prohibition under Section 26 and grant such relief in exercise of the power under Section 17. Thus, the power under Section 17 of the Act to grant interim relief is subject to the exceptions specified under Section 26. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the arbitrator does not have any power to appoint an advocate commissioner except to appoint person(s) to solicit expert opinion," the court observed.
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
Case Title KLM Axiva Finvest Limited v. Bijitha Shajan & Ors
Case Number A.R. No. 53 of 2026
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC(KER) 179
The Kerala High Court has ruled that the time spent in an earlier arbitration cannot be excluded from the limitation period merely because an execution court later finds that the resulting arbitral award is unenforceable or a nullity.
Section 43(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, provides for exclusion of the period between the commencement of an arbitration and the date on which a court sets aside the arbitral award while calculating the limitation period for subsequent proceedings, including a fresh arbitration, concerning the same dispute.
Justice S. Manu held that this exclusion applies only when a court actually orders that the award be set aside under Sections 34 or 37 of the Act.
An execution court's finding that an award is unenforceable or a nullity cannot be treated as an order setting aside the award.
“On a literal reading, the phrase 'an arbitral award be set aside' used in sub-section (4) of Section 43 does not allow for the inclusion of any other circumstance within the purview of the clause,” the court observed.
The court further held that Section 43(4) “would apply only when the Court orders that an arbitral award be set aside under Section 34 or Section 37 of the Act."
An execution court's order holding an award unenforceable or a nullity “cannot be equated with an order passed under Section 34 or Section 37 of the Act.”
Case Title : Antony Wazhson & Anr. v. Mayyanad Regional Co-operative Bank No.94 & Ors.
Case Number : WP(C) No. 34660 of 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(KER) 178
The Kerala High Court has held that a co-operative society's failure to produce a Managing Committee resolution before the Arbitrator does not invalidate arbitration proceedings initiated by the society.
The court ruled that the requirement under Rule 67(2) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969, is directory and not mandatory
“However, I am of the opinion that, though the word 'shall' is used in Rule 67(2) of the 1969 Rules, the provision cannot be construed as mandatory, and it can only be held to be directory. Thus, the failure to produce a resolution before the Arbitrator cannot be fatal to the arbitration proceedings initiated by the Society. It is settled law that the use of the word 'shall'' in a statutory provision does not by itself indicate that the provision is mandatory, and the word 'shall' in suitable circumstances may be read as directory and not mandatory, especially when the provision is procedural.”, it ruled.
Justice Gopinath P. made the ruling while dealing with a challenge by a borrower's wife and son to arbitration proceedings initiated by Mayyanad Regional Co-operative Bank No. 94.
Executing Court Cannot Reject Award Where Parties Mutually Nominated Arbitrator: Kerala High Court
Case Title : M/s Hedge Finance Limited v. Sangeetha A.V
Case Number : OP(C) No. 2206 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(KER) 174
The Kerala High Court on 4 August held that an executing court cannot refuse to enforce an arbitral award on the ground of unilateral appointment of the arbitrator when the parties themselves had mutually nominated the arbitrator in their agreement.
Justice Easwaran set aside an order of the Additional District Court, Kozhikode, which had dismissed an execution petition filed by Hedge Finance Limited to enforce an arbitral award for Rs. 3.47 lakh with 18% interest against Sangeetha A.V. The Bench held:
“In the scheme of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the opposite party, if aggrieved by the award, has to apply for setting aside the same by filing an application under Section 34 of the Act. If the party has not moved any application for setting aside the award, the enquiry under Section 47 of the CPC cannot be enlarged to such an extent, so as to obliterate the award itself unless the award is found to be a nullity."
Jammu & Kashmir & Ladakh High Court
Arbitrator Can Award Escalation For Employer-Caused Delay Without Contractual Clause: J&K High Court
Case Title : J&K Lakes & Waterways Development Authority & Ors. v. Mohammad Amin Shah
Case Number : A. A. No. 9900001/2014
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(JAM) 28
On 29 August, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh held that an Arbitrator can award escalation for delay attributable to the employer even when the contract does not contain a 'Price Escalation Clause'.
Justice Shahzad Azeem upheld an arbitral award of Rs. 21.19 lakh in favour of a contractor, finding that the Arbitrator had based the escalation award on the Department's default in supplying construction material and supported the finding with evidence. The Bench held:
“The absence of a Price Escalation Clause does not, on the Arbitrator's reasoning, bar revision where delay is attributable to the employer.”
J&K And Ladakh High Court Holds SIDCO MD Ineligible To Act As Arbitrator In Contract Dispute With UT
Case Title : M/s Abraq Infrastructures LLP v. UT of J&K & Ors.
Case Number : Arb P 11/2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(JAM) 26
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh on 21 August held that the Managing Director of J&K State Industrial Development Corporation (SIDCO) was ineligible to act as an arbitrator in a dispute between Abraq Infrastructures LLP and the Union Territory, as he was an employee of one of the respondents.
Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Kumar allowed Abraq Infrastructures LLP's petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and appointed a Retired District and Sessions Judge as the Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes arising between the parties. He observed:
“The Managing Director, SIDCO being an employee of respondent No. 1, and thus a person having an interest in the outcome of the dispute, is rendered ineligible, by operation of Section 12(5) read with the Seventh Schedule of the Act.”
J&K And Ladakh HC Holds Past Arbitration No Bar In Refund Claim, Directs SKUAST-J To Release Deposit
Case Title : M/S Construction Engineer v. Sher-e-Kashmir University of Agricultural Sciences & Technology, Jammu & Ors.
Case Number : WP (C) No. 168/2023
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(JAM) 24
On 3 August, the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court held that a contractor's claim for refund of earnest money and performance security cannot be rejected merely because it was not raised in earlier arbitration proceedings over delayed payments.
A Bench of Justice Sanjay Parihar directed Sher-e-Kashmir University of Agricultural Sciences and Technology, Jammu to refund Rs. 29 lakh deposited by Construction Engineer for a boys' hostel project and held that the refund claim was not barred merely because it was not raised in earlier arbitration proceedings. He observed:
“Once the contract had been fully performed and the respondents had accepted the completion of the work without alleging any breach or deficiency, the petitioner's reference to arbitration was confined solely to his claim for interest on delayed payment of the admitted contractual dues. The petitioner had no occasion to seek refund of the earnest money and performance security before the Arbitrator, particularly when the respondents themselves had consistently maintained that no dispute existed which was capable of being referred to arbitration. Having adopted such a stand, the respondents cannot now be permitted to contend that the petitioner ought to have included the relief of refund of the security deposits in the arbitral proceedings.”
Rajasthan High Court
Case Title : Superintending Engineer (MM), Purvanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited Vs Anamika Conductors Pvt. Ltd.,
Case Number : D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 5190/2024
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(RAJ) 32
The Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur has held that while a 75% pre-deposit under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (MSME Act) is mandatory for challenging an arbitral award, courts can grant reasonable time to make the deposit instead of insisting that it accompany the challenge at the time of filing.
The court said the statutory requirement must be met before a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is heard on merits, and, in appropriate cases, the deposit may also be made in instalments.
A Division Bench of Justice Arun Monga and Justice Ashutosh Kumar set aside a Commercial court order dismissing an objection petition filed by Purvanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited (PVVNL) against an arbitral award in favour of Anamika Conductors Pvt. Ltd.
“We accordingly hold that while the requirement of pre-deposit of 75% of the awarded amount under Section 19 of the MSME Act is mandatory and must be complied with before the Section 34 application is entertained on merits, the provision does not require the deposit to accompany the application at the time of its presentation, and the Court is empowered to grant reasonable time and, in an appropriate case of demonstrated hardship, to permit instalments for making the deposit.”, the court ruled.
Case Title :Jaipur Development Authority & Anr. v. Rohan Rajdeep Rajasthan Infra Project Limited
Case Number : D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1560/2025v
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(RAJ) 37
The Rajasthan High Court on 17 August set aside an arbitral award granting Rs. 198.04 crore to Rohan Rajdeep Rajasthan Infra Project Limited against the Jaipur Development Authority (JDA) and the Rajasthan Government in connection with the Ghat Ki Guni BOT tunnel project.
A Division Bench comprising Justices Arun Monga and Sandeep Taneja allowed JDA and the State's appeal and held that an arbitrator cannot shift contractual risks allocated to a developer or award compensation without identifying a corresponding contractual breach. The judges observfed:
“Once the parties had consciously allocated the risk of investigation, survey and design to the concessionaire under the aforesaid clauses, the learned Sole Arbitrator could not have invoked the mandate of Section 28(3) of the Act of 1996 and thus, fastened the financial consequences of redesign upon JDA without first locating a contractual stipulation displacing burden of that allocation. The award identifies no such stipulation, and the effective transfer of the design risk from the respondent to the appellants runs counter to the express terms of the Concession Agreement.”
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."
Case Title : The Executive Engineer, PWD v. M/s. Trimurti Construction & Anr.
Case Number : D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1905/2023
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(RAJ) 42
The Rajasthan High Court has reiterated that an arbitral award based solely on pleadings, without framing issues concerning serious disputed facts or considering evidence, violates the principles of natural justice.
It further held that such an award is against the public policy of India under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Relying on several apex court precedents, the court ruled,
“Thus, the above Legal precedents make it clear that an arbitral award issued without properly identifying key issues of serious disputed facts—and without evidence or a fair hearing—violates natural justice. When a decision is based solely on pleadings, especially where facts remain contested, it breaches fundamental principles of justice," the court ruled.
The bench of Dr. Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Praveer Bhatnagar further held that an arbitral award made contrary to the core procedures and principles of natural justice would be against the public policy of India under Section 34 of the Act.
Karnataka High Court
Case Title : Mr. A.R. Krishnamani v. Lakepoint Builders Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.
Case Number : Writ Petition No. 33403 of 2025 (GM-RES)
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 151
The Karnataka High Court on 25 August partly allowed villa buyer A.R. Krishnamani's petition and set aside an order of the Bengaluru Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge refusing to take on record Right to Information (RTI) replies and other official documents concerning a disputed occupancy certificate.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj held that a party challenging an arbitral award on the ground of fraud can produce additional evidence before a Court exercising jurisdiction under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 only in rare and exceptional circumstances where such material is necessary to decide the fraud allegation. The Bench observed:
“A party challenging an award on the ground of fraud has no right, as a matter of course, to produce additional evidence before the Section 34 Court. Such permission may be granted only in a rare and exceptional case, where the conditions set out above are satisfied and where the reception of the material is absolutely necessary to decide the clause (b) ground, with a corresponding opportunity to the other side to meet it.”
Karnataka High Court Restrains Sale Of 386.541 MT Cashews, Says Arbitration Orders Bind Strangers
Case Title : COAF FZE v. Avanikailani Commodities LLC & Ors.
Case Number : AP.IM. 8 of 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 150
On 27 August, the Karnataka High Court granted interim protection to UAE-based cashew trading company COAF FZE over 386.541 metric tonnes of raw cashew nuts lying in 15 containers at New Mangalore Port, restraining UAE-based supplier Avanikailani Commodities LLC, Indian cashew trader Sindhu Cashew India Pvt. Ltd. and two individuals claiming rights over the cargo from selling, transferring, diverting or otherwise dealing with it.
Justice M.G.S. Kamal held that an interim order preserving the subject matter of arbitration can bind even a stranger to the arbitration agreement who claims an independent right over the disputed property. The Bench observed:
“A stranger who voluntarily gets himself impleaded, staking independent right, title, and interest over the subject matter of the arbitration, and fails to prima facie establish and justify his claims over the subject matter of the arbitration cannot seek to wriggle out of the binding nature of preventive orders that may be granted to preserve the subject matter of the arbitration either.”
Case Title : Aroha Labs Pte. Ltd. v. Mr. Prem Dharmani & Ors.
Case Number: AP.IM. No. 4 of 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(KAR) 133
The Karnataka High Court has ruled that merely choosing a foreign seat of arbitration does not, by itself, prevent Indian courts from granting interim relief under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
It observed that excluding the jurisdiction of Indian courts requires an express agreement between the parties.
Justice M.G.S. Kamal observed, "Therefore, mere existence of an arbitration clause providing place of arbitration outside India itself cannot be construed as ''an agreement to the contrary''. In other words, parties are required to expressly agree and provide that provisions of Sections 9, 27 and Clause (b) of sub-Section(1) and sub-Section(3) of Section 37 of Part I of Act, 1996 are not applicable to the terms of the agreement"
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.
Case Title : HMT Limited v. C. Rajamma (since deceased) by LRs & Connected Matters
Case Number : MFA No. 9565 of 2018 c/w MFA Nos. 9564, 9566–9571 of 2018
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(KAR) 169
The Karnataka High Court has modified the interest payable by HMT on ₹1.39 crore in damages awarded to eight former employees-turned-entrepreneurs for the loss caused by a shortfall in the assured workload.
The entrepreneurs will get 20% annual interest on the damages only for the period during which they were repaying their Karnataka State Financial Corporation (KSFC) loans. For the remaining period, HMT will have to pay interest at 12% per annum.
A Division Bench of Justice Anu Sivaraman and Justice T.P. Vivekananda held that the higher rate could not continue after the KSFC loan liability was discharged.
“The grant of interest at the rate of 20% per annum could be held reasonable only for the period during which the respondents/claimants have repaid the loan amount to KSFC. Once the financial liability of KSFC is discharged, there was no liability of the claimants to pay interest on the loan amount.”, it ruled.
Karnataka High Court Sets Aside ₹13.08 Crore Award To L&T In Bengaluru Metro Contract Dispute
Case Title: Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Limited v. Larsen and Toubro Limited & connected appeal;
Case Number Commercial Appeal No. 124 of 2025 C/W Commercial Appeal No. 116 of 2025
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 165
The Karnataka High Court has recently set aside parts (around ₹13.08 Crore) of an arbitral award arising from a ₹303.29 crore Bengaluru Metro construction contract between Larsen & Toubro Limited (L&T) and Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Limited (BMRCL).
The court found shortcomings in the tribunal's treatment of claims relating to reduced parapet quantities, revised rates for 18 delayed pier locations and unpaid reinforcement quantities. It also set aside the tribunal's finding on L&T's entitlement to time-related costs during the prolonged contract period.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice K.S. Hemalekha observed: “The court cannot re-appreciate or re-validate evidence and supplant its opinion in place of the Arbitral Tribunal in proceedings under Section 34 of the A&C Act. However, it is not disputed that if the Arbitral Tribunal has disregarded evidence or material which is relevant, the arbitral award would be liable to be set aside.”
Case Title The Commissioner v. The Karnataka Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council and Another
Case Number Writ Appeal No. 1490 of 2024 (GM-RES)
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC(KAR) 160
The Karnataka High Court on 3 September held that the State cannot circumvent the statutory limitation for challenging an arbitral award passed by the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council by invoking the High Court's writ jurisdiction for a merits review.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice K.S. Hemalekha allowed the writ appeal filed by the Commissioner, Bhoomi Monitoring Cell, only to the extent of holding that the State's writ petition challenging a Rs. 29.32 lakh award in favour of Connoinseur Electronics Pvt. Ltd. ought not to have been entertained on merits. The judges held:
“Plainly, the appellant cannot be permitted to overcome the period of limitation by avoiding the statutory remedy and seeking the extraordinary remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.”
One Party's Arbitrator Cannot Act As Sole Arbitrator If Other Fails To Nominate: Karnataka High Court
Case Title Lotus Landmarks (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. RVP City Owners & Ors
Case Number MFA No. 103181 of 2022 (AA)
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC(KAR) 161
The Karnataka High Court on 31 August held that where an arbitration agreement gives both parties the right to nominate an arbitrator, one party's nominee cannot proceed as the sole arbitrator merely because the other party failed to make its nomination. The party that has exercised its right to nominate must instead approach the Court under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
A Division Bench of Justices S. Sunil Dutt Yadav and K.G. Shanthi allowed Lotus Landmarks' appeal against the dismissal of its challenge to an arbitral award, holding that the nominee appointed by RVP City Owners could not have proceeded as the sole arbitrator. The judges observed:
“Where an Arbitration Clause provides for nomination of an Arbitrator by each of the parties, the exercise of such option by one of the parties and non-exercise of such option by the other party does not ipso facto lead to abandonment of procedure prescribed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act and resort to proceedings by a nominee of one of the parties is impermissible.”
30-Day Limit For Correcting Award Is Inflexible, Applies To NH Act Arbitration: Karnataka High Court
Case Title : NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA vs C. PRAMOD
Case Number : MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3756 OF 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 155
The Karnataka High Court has held that the 30-day limit for seeking correction or interpretation of an arbitral award cannot be extended, and a belated application cannot revive the time limit for challenging the award, including in arbitrations under the National Highways Act, 1956.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice K.S. Hemalekha dismissed an appeal filed by the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) against the 13 February 2026 order of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural, which had dismissed NHAI's Section 34 petition and confirmed the arbitral award. The judges held:
“We do not find any basis for the said contention. Section 3G(6) of the NH Act expressly provides that the provisions of the A&C Act would apply to arbitration under the NH Act, subject to the provisions of the NH Act. There is no provision under the NH Act, which would exclude the time period stipulated under Section 33 of the A&C Act.”
Case Title : Mr. A.R. Krishnamani v. Lakepoint Builders Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.
Case Number : Writ Petition No. 33403 of 2025 (GM-RES)
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 151
The Karnataka High Court on 25 August partly allowed villa buyer A.R. Krishnamani's petition and set aside an order of the Bengaluru Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge refusing to take on record Right to Information (RTI) replies and other official documents concerning a disputed occupancy certificate.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj held that a party challenging an arbitral award on the ground of fraud can produce additional evidence before a Court exercising jurisdiction under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 only in rare and exceptional circumstances where such material is necessary to decide the fraud allegation. The Bench observed:
“A party challenging an award on the ground of fraud has no right, as a matter of course, to produce additional evidence before the Section 34 Court. Such permission may be granted only in a rare and exceptional case, where the conditions set out above are satisfied and where the reception of the material is absolutely necessary to decide the clause (b) ground, with a corresponding opportunity to the other side to meet it.”
Calcutta High Court
Section 69 Partnership Act Does Not Bar Arbitration Without Dissolution Plea: Calcutta High Court
Case Title : Sandip Singla v. Jagdeb Chand Gupta
Case Number : AO-COM/38/2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 201
The Calcutta High Court on 20 August observed that Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, which restricts suits by unregistered partnership firms to enforce contractual rights, does not bar arbitration between partners merely because dissolution of the partnership has not been sought.
A Division Bench of Justices Debangsu Basak and Aryak Dutt set aside the arbitral award in the dispute between Sandip Singla and Jagdeb Chand Gupta, holding that the arbitrator had travelled beyond the scope of reference by creating a rotational management arrangement that gave each partner exclusive control of the partnership business for alternating periods, rendering the award contrary to public policy. It held:
“In our view, Section 69 of the Act of 1932, regulates the filing of suits by an unregistered partnership firm. It does not speak on the issue as sought to be contended on behalf of the respondent before us. One of the contentions of the respondent is that, since, the respondent did not pray for dissolution of the partnership firm, the arbitration proceeding itself is not maintainable and, therefore, the award passed in such arbitration proceedings needs to be set aside.”
Case Title : The Kolkata Municipal Corporation v. Bengal Shelter Housing Development Ltd.
Case Number : CO 1409 of 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 196
The Calcutta High Court has directed an arbitral tribunal to record the chief examination of all witnesses proposed by a claimant before beginning the cross-examination of any of them.
The court held that this was necessary to prevent a later witness from filling gaps in the evidence of an earlier witness and prejudicing the other side.
Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul), setting aside a procedural order passed by the sole arbitrator in a dispute between the Kolkata Municipal Corporation and Bengal Shelter Housing Development Ltd., observed:
“Witness action should therefore take place by taking on record the chief of all witnesses before their respective cross examination takes place to prevent miscarriage of justice.”
Case Title : CE Testing Company Private Limited v. Madhucon Projects Limited and Another
Case Number : EC-COM 72 of 2025 with IA No. GA-COM 1 of 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 186
The Calcutta High Court has ruled that a certified copy of an arbitral award carrying only a third-party certification that the original was signed, without reproducing the arbitrators' signatures, does not amount to delivery of a "signed copy" under Section 31(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Without such delivery, the limitation period for challenging the award under Section 34 does not begin, making an execution petition for its enforcement premature.
A single bench of Justice Gaurang Kanth observed that Section 31(5) requires parties to receive a copy that itself bears the arbitrators' signatures so they can verify that the award validly emanates from the arbitral tribunal.
"A certificate by a third party, however authorised, that an unseen original was signed cannot be equated with a copy that itself bears the signatures, since the very object of Section31(5), as explained in Tecco Trichy Engineers (supra), is to permit eachparty to satisfy itself, from the document delivered to it, that the award emanates validly from the Tribunal”, the court ruled.
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.
Pending Arbitration Does Not Bar Wilful Defaulter Proceedings Against Borrower: Calcutta High Court
Case Title : Kitply Industries Limited & Ors. v. Reserve Bank of India & Anr.
Case Number : W.P.A. No. 24869 of 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(CAL) 234
On 23 September, the Calcutta High Court held that the pendency of arbitration proceedings cannot prevent a lender from issuing a show-cause notice to declare a borrower a wilful defaulter.
Justice Krishna Rao dismissed Kitply Industries' writ petition challenging SREI Equipment Finance Ltd.'s (SEFL) show-cause notice alleging that it had disposed of assets securing its credit facility without the lender's approval. The Bench observed:
“Pendency of the arbitration proceeding could not debar the issuance of show cause notice"
Case Title CHAKVRIGU COOPERATIVE LABOUR CONTACT & CONSTRUCTION SOCIETY LIMITED & ANR. VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.
Case Number WPA 19048 of 2019
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 225
The Calcutta High Court has held that where a contract contains an arbitration clause, parties have an alternative remedy of invoking arbitration, particularly when the dispute involves questions of fact that cannot be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta, relying on the judgment of Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and others reiterated that writ jurisdiction may still be exercised in exceptional circumstances including violation of fundamental rights or principles of natural justice,or where proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction.
"When there is an arbitration clause, the parties have an alternative remedy to approach for arbitration for their disputes whatsoever. This court is conscious that despite the availability of the alternative remedy. With reference to the decision of Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and others, it is clearly established that the High Court may still exercise its writ jurisdiction on discretionary power when it is found (i) where the writ petitioner seeks enforcement of any of the fundamental rights; (ii) where there is violation of the principles of natural justice; (iii) where the orders or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act and rule is challenged."
Case Title Amal Krishna Dey v. Central Warehousing Corporation
Case Number AO-COM 35 of 2025
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC(CAL) 216
The Calcutta High Court has upheld the setting aside of an arbitral award passed by an arbitrator appointed unilaterally by the Managing Director of the Central Warehousing Corporation.
It held that a contractual clause permitting such appointment could not override the post-dispute written waiver requirement under Section 12(5)
A Division Bench of Justice Debangsu Basak and Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta dismissed an appeal filed by contractor Amal Krishna Dey against the Commercial Court's decision to set aside an award of over ₹16 lakh in his favour.
The Court held that Section 12(5) overrides prior agreements permitting an interested party's managing director to appoint the sole arbitrator. The ineligibility could be waived only through an express written agreement executed after the dispute arose.
The Bench observed:
“The proviso to Section 12(5) permits only one route out: an express agreement in writing entered into after the disputes have arisen. A pre-dispute clause of general application, drafted into the standard conditions of contract, does not meet that description, however, clearly worded.”
Arbitrator's Elevation As Judge Did Not Affect Award Passed Before Taking Oath: Calcutta High Court
Case Title The Hooghly Mills Company Limited v. Acumen (J) Marketing Private Limited
Case Number AP-COM/607/2026
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC(CAL) 217
The Calcutta High Court has held that the elevation of an arbitrator as a High Court judge did not affect the validity of an arbitral award passed by him. The award was passed hours before he took oath as a judge on the same day.
The order was passed by Justice Gaurang Kanth, who rejected Acumen (J) Marketing Private Limited's objection to sole arbitrator Partha Pratim Roy's competence after his elevation as an Additional Judge of the Calcutta High Court.
The bench noted that the award was rendered at 2:00 p.m. on August 8, 2026, while Roy assumed judicial office only upon taking the oath at 4:15 p.m. that day.
The Bench observed, “The learned Arbitrator assumed judicial office upon taking oath at 4:15 p.m. on 8th August, 2026, whereas the award was passed earlier that day, at 2:00 p.m., prior to his elevation. The objection, therefore, does not affect the validity or publication of the award.”
Case Title Innovel Energy Services Pvt. Ltd. (Previously: Environ Solar Pvt. Ltd.) v. Elevar Digitel Infrastructure Private Limited
Case Number AP-COM 385 of 2026
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC(CAL) 215
The Calcutta High Court has reiterated that the location of an MSME Facilitation Council does not, by itself, determine the territorial jurisdiction of courts over proceedings arising from an arbitral award.
Applying this principle, the court held that an exclusive-jurisdiction clause in favour of the New Delhi courts governed a Section 29A application seeking an extension of the arbitral mandate after an award was passed by the West Bengal Micro Small Enterprises Facilitation Council (WBMSEFC), Kolkata.
Justice Gaurang Kanth observed, “Section 18(3) of the MSMED Act itself provides that where the Facilitation Council proceeds to arbitrate the dispute, the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act shall apply to the dispute as if the arbitration were pursuant to an arbitration agreement under Section 7 of the said Act. Consequently, once the statutory arbitral proceedings culminate in an award, any challenge to, or proceeding arising in relation to, such award is governed by the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The statutory location of the Facilitation Council, therefore, cannot by itself be treated as determinative of the territorial jurisdiction of the Court under Section 2(1)(e) of the Arbitration Act.”
Case Title : Bijay Saha@ Bijoy Saha v. Ajit Saha and Ors
Case Number : FMAT(ARBAWRD) 3 of 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(CAL) 214
The Calcutta High Court on Friday set aside an order of the Darjeeling District Judge restraining a Sole Arbitrator from proceeding with a pending application under Section 33 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, holding that courts must exercise restraint in interfering with an ongoing arbitral process.
A bench of Justice Ravi Kishan Kapur and Justice Supratim Bhattacharya was hearing an appeal against an order of the District Judge, Darjeeling, in a dispute between family members concerning the management and control of family-owned companies.
“The instances of judicial intervention are limited and circumscribed under the Act. The repeated pronouncements by all Courts that when matters are pending before the Arbitrator, the Courts should not unnecessarily interfere with the arbitral process have been disregarded.” it observed.
Following their father's death, the parties referred their disputes to arbitration, resulting in an award dated September 9, 2014. The award was put to execution in 2022. The appellant's subsequent application under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act, alleging omissions and seeking corrections, was dismissed, with liberty to pursue an appropriate remedy.
Case Title : STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LIMITED VS M/S EASTERN MINERALS AND TRADING AGENCY
Case Number : EC-COM 155 OF 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 212
The Calcutta High Court on 7 September held that the period during which execution of an arbitral award was practically unavailable due to binding judicial precedent cannot be counted for computing the limitation period.
Justice Gaurang Kanth allowed Steel Authority of India Limited's (SAIL) execution petition, holding that the period from 29 February 2008 to 22 October 2015 had to be excluded while computing the 12-year limitation period. The Bench held:
“To hold that limitation ran uninterrupted through the very period in which the award-holder's remedy stood paralysed by binding authority would allow the mischief the Amendment was designed to cure to operate as an independent and permanent bar to the Award notwithstanding the cure.”
Calcutta High Court Rejects Reliance Jute Mills' ₹1.09 Cr. Claim Against Over Interest On Interest
Case Title : RELIANCE JUTE MILLS (INTERNATIONAL) LIMITED VERSUS THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
Case Number : EC-COM 594 OF 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 209
The Calcutta High Court on 27 August dismissed Reliance Jute Mills (International) Ltd's execution petition seeking an additional Rs. 1.09 crore from The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd, after finding that Reliance had already received Rs. 8.76 crore under the arbitral award dated 2 March 2020.
Justice Gaurang Kanth held that the amount already paid, together with accrued interest, exceeded the amount payable under the award and that Reliance could not claim further interest by treating accrued interest as part of the principal. The Bench said:
“As against this sum genuinely due under the Award, a sum of Rs. 8,76,59,688/- already stands paid to the Award Holder. It therefore emerges that the amount already paid exceeds, by approximately Rs. 13.7 lakh, the amount actually due on a correct, non-compounded reading of the Award. No further sum is, therefore, payable to the Award holder, and the claim for an additional sum of Rs. 1,09,24,081/- is found to be without merit.”
Once Referred To Arbitration Suit Cannot Remain Pending Before Civil Court: Calcutta High Court
Case Title : Badri Narayan Bhatter and Another v. Hari Narayan Bhatter and Another
Case Number : F.M.A. No. 712 of 2025 with CAN 1 of 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 204
The Calcutta High Court on 31 August held that once a civil court refers parties to arbitration under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the suit does not remain pending before the civil court.
A Division Bench of Justices Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Sandip Kumar De allowed an appeal by Badri Narayan Bhatter and another, restored a partition suit and directed the Trial Court to appoint a Receiver for the disputed Kolkata property. The judges held:
“...Section 8 of the Arbitration Act does not allow for continuance of a suit or retention of the same by the court after an order is passed by the court in the suit under Section 8 of the said Act to refer the parties to arbitration. Sub-section (1) of Section 8 of the Arbitration Act clearly provides that upon an application under Section 8 being made, the judicial authority before which such action is brought “shall refer the parties to arbitration”, thus not leaving anything of the suit to be retained before the said Court..."
Gauhati High Court
Case Title : SRK Metals and Plastics (Pvt.) Ltd. v. State of Assam and Ors.
Case Number: WP(C)/8288/2019
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(GAU) 26
The Gauhati High Court has recently ruled that an MSME supplier's claim for statutory interest on delayed payments cannot be disregarded merely because the principal contractual amount has subsequently been paid.
Justice Kaushik Goswami observed, “Section 17 of the MSMED Act expressly makes the buyer liable to pay the amount due together with interest thereon as provided under Section 16. Therefore, subject to verification of the relevant dates of acceptance/deemed acceptance and the period of delay, the petitioner's claim for statutory interest cannot be disregarded merely because the principal contractual amount has subsequently been paid.”
The order came on a writ petition filed by SRK Metals and Plastics (Pvt.) Ltd. The company had approached the High Court after its contractual bills were not cleared.
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.”
Telangana High Court
Case Title : Nagarjuna Fertilizers and Chemicals Limited v. Tecnimont S.P.A. and Others
Case Number: Original Side Appeal Nos. 2 of 2025 and 1 of 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(TEL) 61
The Telangana High Court has held that two orders passed in execution proceedings relating to an international commercial arbitration award could not be challenged through a Letters Patent appeal as they were not appealable under the statutory provisions governing such appeals.
The Division Bench comprising Justice K. Lakshman and Justice B.R. Madhusudhan Rao observed:
“The Act, 1996, is a self-contained code which governs all matters pertaining to arbitration, including the right to file appeals. It is trite law that a self-contained code is a special enactment. Such special enactment prevails over general enactments.”
Case Title : Kambhampati Venkata Rama Krishna Rao v. M/s Amarkrishna Constructions and Developers
Case Number : Arbitration Application No. 196 of 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(TEL) 58
The Telangana High Court has held that a retired partner could invoke an arbitration clause in a Reconstitution of a partnership deed (retirement deed) because the clause covered disputes between the parties and did not limit arbitration to existing partners.
Referring to Article 12 of the deed, Justice K. Lakshman ruled, “The arbitration clause clearly specifies that the disputes arising between the parties shall be referred to arbitration. It is nowhere stated that disputes between existing partners can only be referred to arbitration. The Applicant was a party to the said agreement, therefore, the questions as to the Applicant's right to invoke arbitration or locus standi do not arise.,”
The ruling came on an arbitration application filed by Kambhampati Venkata Rama Krishna Rao against Amarkrishna Constructions and Developers. The court appointed retired District and Sessions Judge D. Ravindra Sharma as the sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties.
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.
Case Title Atlantis Agritech Private Limited v. M/s Kendriya Bhandar and Another
Case Number Civil Revision Petition No. 1947 of 2026
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC(TEL) 70
The Telangana High Court has held that an award debtor cannot use execution-stage objections to sidestep the mandatory 75% deposit required under the MSMED Act.
The ruling came in a dispute between MSME supplier Atlantis Agritech Private Limited and Kendriya Bhandar, after the latter sought to keep asset-disclosure proceedings in abeyance pending its application under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure before the Executing Court.
The High Court held that such proceedings cannot be treated as independent of the Section 19 mandate requiring an award debtor to deposit 75% of the awarded amount and that a Section 47 application cannot automatically exempt the debtor from that requirement.
A Division Bench of Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice Renuka Yara allowed a civil revision petition filed by Atlantis and directed the award debtor, Kendriya Bhandar, to file a fresh affidavit disclosing the specific amounts receivable by it from ongoing and completed projects across India within three weeks.
The bench observed, “Section 47 of the CPC which allows the Judgment-Debtor to raise questions in relation to the decree can be equated to a challenge to the decree or Award as contemplated under section 19 of the MSMED Act. This is by reason of the fact that the Judgment-Debtor seeks to resist the execution of the decree under a section 47 application which is similar to an application for setting aside a decree/award made by the Facilitation Council. Therefore, proceedings under section 47 cannot said to be independent of the mandate in section 19 of the MSMED Act. Section 47 of the CPC also does not pre-suppose that the Judgment-Debtor would automatically be exempted from making the 75% deposit of the decretal amount.”
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.”
Jharkhand High Court
Jharkhand High Court Rejects State's Challenge To Delhi As Arbitral Seat After 2.5 Years
Case Title : Road Construction Department v. Ramky Infrastructure Limited
Case Number : W.P.(C) No.4806 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (JHAR) 17
The Jharkhand High Court on 20 August, dismissed the Jharkhand Road Construction Department's challenge to an Arbitral Tribunal's decision fixing Delhi as the seat of arbitration in its dispute with Ramky Infrastructure Limited.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Ananda Sen held that the Department's continued participation in the proceedings without a timely objection amounted to waiver under Section 4 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. He explained:
“The 'seat of arbitration' is the juridical home of arbitration. The seat of arbitration is an anchor and determines the procedural law and the Courts that will exercise supervisory jurisdiction over the arbitration…This seat of arbitration cannot be changed or varied. It remains constant and static, because a procedural law governing the arbitration and the supervisory jurisdiction of Courts over the arbitration proceeding cannot be allowed to change in the midst of an arbitration proceeding.”
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.”
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Madhya Pradesh HC Reiterates Three-Year Limitation Law Cannot Bar Landowner's Claim Under NH Act
Case Title : Shri Jankiraman Maharaj v. National Highway Authority of India and Others
Case Number : Arbitration Appeal No. 40 of 2022
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (MP) 60
The Madhya Pradesh High Court on 10 August set aside an order upholding an arbitral award that had rejected a landowner's claim for enhancement of compensation for land acquired for widening National Highway No. 12.
Justice Deepak Khot reiterated that the three-year limitation period under Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 does not apply to statutory arbitration proceedings under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956, and that the Arbitrator must adopt a justice-oriented approach while considering claims for enhancement of compensation. The Bench observed:
“In view of the aforesaid legal position, in the considered opinion of this Court, the Arbitrator was not justified in applying Article 137 of the Act of 1963 and dismissing the appellant's application solely on the ground of delay and laches without examining the claim for enhancement of compensation on its merits. The learned Civil/Commercial Court has also failed to consider the aforesaid legal position while affirming the order of the Arbitrator.”
Foreign Award Can Be Enforced And Executed By High Court In A Single Proceeding: Madhya Pradesh HC
Case Title: Moshers v. Shri Mittal Agritech Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : Arbitration Case No. 56 of 2024
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (MP) 61
The Madhya Pradesh High Court on 21 August held that a foreign arbitral award can be enforced and executed by the High Court in the same proceeding without requiring a separate execution case before a subordinate court.
Justice Vinay Saraf rejected the oral objections raised by Shri Mittal Agritech Pvt. Ltd. to execution of the foreign award obtained by Moshers, holding that once a foreign award is declared enforceable under Sections 47 and 48 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, it becomes a deemed decree of the High Court under Section 49 and can be executed by the High Court itself. The Bench observed:
“As the definition of 'Court' in explanation to Section 47 provides that the High Court will be the competent Court for deciding the enforceability, the award is required to be executed by the High Court as the decree passed by the High Court. Therefore, the oral objections raised by the respondent are not tenable and are hereby rejected.”
Two Arbitration Places Can Both Be Seats If Parties Do Not Choose One: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Case Title: Idieal Multi Media Network Private Limited vs. CMYK Printech Limited
Case Number :Arbitration Case No. 32 of 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (MP) 59
The Madhya Pradesh High Court on 16 July held that where an arbitration agreement specifies two alternative places as the “place of arbitration” and the parties do not subsequently choose one, both places can operate as juridical seats of arbitration.
Justice Vivek Jain accordingly referred the dispute between Idieal Multi Media Network Private Limited and newspaper publisher CMYK Printech Limited to arbitration and appointed former Calcutta High Court Chief Justice Sujoy Paul as the sole arbitrator. He observed:
“In the present case, so far as the dual places of arbitration are concerned, the MOU does indicate that courts at Bhopal or New Delhi shall have the jurisdiction and the place shall be Delhi or Bhopal, or as decided by the parties. No different decision has been taken by the parties and therefore, the position remains that now the seat of arbitration is Delhi or Bhopal and the High Courts exercising jurisdiction over Delhi as well as over Madhya Pradesh would therefore have jurisdiction to entertain this application under Section 11(6).”
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."
Case Title : Nawab Raza And Others Versus Usman Khan And Another
Case Number : Misc. Appeal No. 6075 Of 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(MP) 67
On 16 September, the Madhya Pradesh High Court held that where a party challenges the very execution and validity of a partnership deed containing an arbitration clause on grounds of fraud, conspiracy and lack of informed consent, the existence of a valid arbitration agreement must be examined before the dispute can be referred to arbitration.
Justice Ramkumar Choubey dismissed a miscellaneous appeal against the 23rd District Judge, Bhopal's order restoring a civil suit after setting aside the Trial Court's direction to refer the dispute to arbitration, noting that the plaintiff was challenging the partnership deed itself, including its execution and the alleged procurement of his signature through fraud and conspiracy. The Bench observed:
“At this stage, this Court is not required to finally adjudicate upon the truthfulness of the allegations of fraud and conspiracy, nor is it required to record a final finding regarding the validity of the partnership deed. Nevertheless, for the limited purpose of determining the forum in which the foundational dispute is required to be adjudicated, the allegations contained in the plaint, the nature of the disputed document and the other attending facts and circumstances cannot be brushed aside as a mere allegation of fraud simpliciter.”
Case Title : Susajja JV Anand LLP v. Bhopal Municipal Corporation
Case Number : Arbitration Case No. 66 of 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (MP) 63
The Madhya Pradesh High Court on 3 September reiterated that a waste management contract does not become a “works contract” merely because it involves incidental civil construction, and that disputes arising from such a contract can be referred to arbitration under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Justice Deepak Khot allowed Susajja JV Anand LLP's application against Bhopal Municipal Corporation and appointed former Calcutta High Court Chief Justice Sujoy Paul as the sole arbitrator to resolve the contractual dispute between the parties. The Bench held:
“Therefore, following the view taken by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ecogreen Energy (supra) as well as by this Court in the case of M/s PKH M.P. Convention Center (supra), this Court is also of the considered opinion that the contract in question is not a work contract, as it deals dominantly for the purpose of waste management and the civil work which is incidental to the said management cannot be said to be a works contract. Therefore, the present application is allowed.”
Patna High Court
CPC Applies To Court Proceedings Arising From Arbitration Unless Excluded: Patna High Court
Case Title : The Bihar State Warehousing Corporation & Anr. v. M/s Pushpheera Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Case Number : Commercial Appeal No. 15 of 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(PAT) 21
The Patna High Court on 6 August held that while the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) does not bind arbitral tribunals, it applies to court proceedings arising from an arbitral award unless expressly excluded.
A Division Bench comprising Justices Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Ramesh Chand Malviya set aside a Commercial Court order dismissing the Bihar State Warehousing Corporation's challenge to a Rs. 5.99 crore arbitral award after it cured a Rs. 245 court fee deficit 62 days beyond the statutory outer limit. The judges held:
“Section 19 of the Act of 1996 only provides that the arbitral tribunal shall not be bound of CPC. It only excludes the applicability of CPC before the arbitral tribunal and not the proceedings before the court arising out of the arbitral award.”
Case Title: Raj Karan Singh v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 14490 of 2024
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(PAT )25
The Patna High Court has held that Tata Motors Finance Limited could not proceed against a borrower's commercial vehicle on the basis of an ex parte arbitral award without following the prescribed enforcement process.
Justice Girijish Kumar observed that the finance company had failed to act under Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and had “taken the law in its hand," which was impermissible.
Section 36 requires an enforceable arbitral award to be enforced in the same manner as a civil court decree. The court therefore held that Tata Motors Finance should have approached the competent civil court to execute the award before proceeding against the vehicle.
Tripura High Court
Case Title : Sri Kashinath Bhattacharjee v. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) & Anr.
Case Number : Arbitration Petition No. 09 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (TRI) 6
On 10 August, the Tripura High Court held that an employee or officer named as an arbitrator in an agreement executed before 23 October 2015 becomes ineligible to act as arbitrator if arbitration had not commenced before the 2015 amendment to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Chief Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao allowed Kashinath Bhattacharjee's arbitration petition in a dispute under a Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) tender agreement and rejected BSNL's attempt to appoint its General Manager as the sole arbitrator, instead appointing retired Tripura Judicial Service officer Swapan Bhattacharjee as arbitrator. The Bench observed:
“A plain reading of this provision of law indicates that even in respect of an agreement entered into before 23.10.2015 (which provided that an employee or officer or one of the parties will be the Arbitrator), if no arbitrator had been appointed prior to 23.10.2015 in relation to a dispute between the parties to the arbitration agreement, then notwithstanding such prior agreement to the contrary, such officer or employee or one of the parties (who would fall under the categories specified in the Seventh Schedule), would be ineligible to be appointed as an Arbitrator after 23.10.2015.”
Madras High Court
Case Title : M/s Hyundai Motor India Ltd. v. M/s St. Antonys Cars Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : O.S.A. No. 38 of 2021
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 212
The Madras High Court has recently held that the Emden formula, developed to quantify damages in construction contracts, cannot ordinarily be used to assess compensation in disputes arising from automobile dealership agreements.
A Division Bench of Justice P. Velmurugan and Justice K. Govindarajan Thilakavadi observed that the formula is rooted in the unique features of construction contracts and cannot be mechanically extended to commercial distribution arrangements.
"A dealership agreement is a commercial distribution contract and not a construction contract. Damages under a dealership agreement must be proved under Sections 73 and 74 of the Indian Contract Act, on the basis of actual evidence, such as loss of profits, commission, business opportunities or investments, and cannot ordinarily be assessed through the Emden formula," the court ruled.
Court Holds Court Fee Cannot Be Retained For Non-Maintainable Appeal: Madras High Court
Case Title : J. Murugavel v. Pichai
Case Number : Arb Appeal (MD) No. 63 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 243
The Madras High Court on 6 August held that court fee paid for an appeal that is not maintainable cannot be retained by the State, as such collection would be without the authority of law and result in unjust enrichment.
A Division Bench comprising Justices G.R. Swaminathan and K.K. Ramakrishnan refused to entertain J. Murugavel's appeal against Pichai, Proprietor of Vel Murugan Traders, filed under Section 37(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, challenging a final arbitral award. It held:
“When an arbitration appeal against a final award will not lie before the High Court under Section 37 of the 1996 Act, the acceptance of court-fee paid therefor is without the authority of law. This is one more reason for ordering refund. If refund is not ordered, there would be unjust enrichment for the State.”
MSME Council Must Follow Mandatory Arbitration Process Before Passing Award: Madras High Court
Case Title : M/s. 3F Industries Ltd. v. M/s. Mahalakshmi Trading Corporation
Case Number : CRP No. 6542 of 2025 and CMP No. 32321 of 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 241
On 19 August, the Madras High Court held that an award passed by the Chennai Region Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Facilitation Council without initiating arbitration as required under Section 18(3) of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (MSMED Act) cannot be sustained.
Justice P.B. Balaji set aside the Rs. 33.40 lakh award passed in favour of Mahalakshmi Trading Corporation against 3F Industries Ltd., holding that the Council had proceeded straight to an “Award” without following the mandatory arbitration procedure under Section 18(3). The Bench observed:
“it is clear that there has been no initiation of arbitration proceedings as required under Section 18(3) of the Act. In such circumstances, the impugned order, without adhering to the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, commencing from a reference to arbitration and thereafter, calling upon the parties to file their claim and defence statements and further contemplating an enquiry/trial before passing an Award has admittedly not been done in the instant case. Therefore, the impugned order dated 13.03.2025 self styled as an Award has no legs to stand and is liable to be set aside.”
Case Title : Vedanta Limited v. Masyc Projects Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : OSA No. 315 of 2019
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 226
The Madras High Court on 31 July partly allowed Vedanta Limited's appeal arising from its dispute over the design, manufacture, supply and commissioning of a conveyor system for a copper concentrate warehouse at Tuticorin, while substantially upholding the arbitral award in favour of Masyc Projects Pvt. Ltd.
A Division Bench of Justices P. Velmurugan and K. Govindarajan Thilakavadi held that interest awarded for the pre-arbitration and pendente lite periods must be commensurate with the prevailing rate of interest and economic conditions during the relevant period, and reduced the rate in the present case from 14% to 9% per annum. The judges held:
“The learned Single Judge considering the prime lending / base rate of the State Bank of India form 27.06.2009 to date of Award (8.3.2016) as a reasonable bench mark for a business commercial transaction revised the rate of interest from 24% per annum to 14% per annum during the pre reference period and the pendente lite period. The learned Single Judge ought to have considered that the interest must commensurate with the prevalent rate of interest for the relevant period. No reason was stated by the learned Single Judge that the interest rate at 14% reflects the prevailing economic conditions. Admittedly the legal notice was issued in the year 2009 and the pleadings were submitted in the year 2013 and the award was passed in the year 2016. Hence, we are of the view that the interest awarded by the learned Single Judge at 14% for the pre arbitration period and for the pendente lite period be reduced to 9% per annum.”
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.”
Madras High Court Enforces ₹13.31 Crore Award Against LIBRA Productions After Challenge Period Ends
Case Title : Madhav Media Pvt. Ltd. v. LIBRA Productions Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : EP No. 8 of 2026 in Arbitration O.P. No. 595 of 2024
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 273
The Madras High Court on 17 September allowed Madhav Media Pvt. Ltd.'s execution petition seeking the arrest of LIBRA Productions Pvt. Ltd. for enforcement of a Rs. 13.31 crore arbitral award.
Justice K. Kumaresh Babu held that once the limitation period for challenging an arbitral award expires, the award becomes final and enforceable between the parties, and a party cannot resist enforcement by subsequently questioning the arbitrator's appointment. The Bench observed:
“In such an event, the award had become final between the parties and the Decree Holder is entitled to enforce the award. Even though the Judgment Debtor claims that the Bank accounts had been frozen by the Investigating Agency and the title deeds have been deposited by him, no proof of such order being passed has been placed before this Court, nor had he taken any steps for defreezing the account.”
Madras High Court Says It Cannot “Bow Down” To NPA Threat, Upholds Attachment Against SEPC, Twarit
Case Title : SEPC Limited (formerly Shriram EPC Limited) v. GPE (India) Ltd. & Ors.
Case Number : A.No.1812 of 2026 in E.P.No.91 of 2023
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 274
On 21 September, the Madras High Court dismissed SEPC Limited's plea to recall or keep in abeyance the attachment of Rs. 154.63 crore in trade receivables during enforcement of a foreign arbitral award against SEPC and Twarit Consultancy Services Private Limited.
Justice K. Kumaresh Babu refused to lift or keep the attachment in abeyance, holding that the Court could not “bow down” to the argument that its continuation could affect the companies' business or lead to their assets being classified as non-performing assets. The Bench observed:
“The arguments made by the Judgment Debtors as well as the Consortium banks is the nature of intimidation that if the order of attachment is continued, the Judgment Debtors would fall as non-performing assets which would not be helpful for any of the parties. An attempt had been made by the first Judgment Debtor that it is a going concern and if the order of attachment continues, it would have to lose its business if the trade receivables are not re-infused into the Company for further operation.”
Case Title M/s. Shanti Telefilms vs M/s. Amma Creations
Case Number OA No. 372 of 2026 and Arb Appln.Nos.944 & 945 of 2026
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 265
The Madras High Court has disposed of three applications seeking to restrain the release and commercial exploitation of Tamil film Agni Siragugal after Amma Creations undertook not to release, distribute or otherwise commercially exploit the film without clearing the claimed dues.
Justice K. Kumaresh Babu recorded the undertaking and directed that it be strictly abided by until the disposal of the arbitral proceedings. The order was passed on September 15.
The applications were filed by Shanti Telefilms against Amma Creations under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. This provision allows a party involved in an arbitration dispute to seek interim protection from a court.
Justice Babu ruled:
“In view of the statement that had been made by the respondent by way of an affidavit, recording the affidavit, all these applications stand disposed of and it is made clear that the said undertaking shall be strictly abided by the respondent till the disposal of the arbitral proceedings.”
Case Title M/s Sundaram Finance Limited v. A. Arun Kumar & Anr.; M/s Sundaram Finance Limited v. S. Maheswari & Anr.
Case Number CRP Nos. 4649 & 4436 of 2026
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 263
The Madras High Court on 31 August held that an Executing Court cannot suo motu refuse to enforce an arbitral award on the ground that the arbitrator was unilaterally appointed when the award-debtors have neither challenged the award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 nor contested its execution.
Justice P.B. Balaji allowed two civil revision petitions filed by Sundaram Finance Limited against the award-debtors, set aside the orders refusing execution and directed the Executing Courts to enforce the arbitral awards “as it stands”. The Bench observed:
“Admittedly, in the present cases, the award sufferers have neither challenged the awards in a manner known to law, by filing a Section 34 application under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, nor even come forward to contest the execution petitions as well. In the absence of any such challenge on the side of the award sufferers, the Executing Court cannot suo motu exercise a right to dismiss the execution petitions, on finding that the appointment of the Arbitrator was unilateral.”
Madras High Court Says Time Extension Doesn't Waive Liquidated Damages If Right Is Reserved
Case Title : Ansaldo Energia S.P.A. & Anr. v. M/s Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd.
Case Number : OSA No. 140 of 2022 and A. No. 3696 of 2023 in OP No. 709 of 2016
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 261
The Madras High Court has refused to interfere with an arbitral award in a dispute over delays in the expansion of Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited's First Thermal Power Station by two 210 MW units.
It held that NLC had not waived its right to claim liquidated damages by granting extensions of time, as each extension expressly reserved that right.
A bench of Justice P. Velmurugan and Justice K. Govindarajan Thilakavadi observed:
“Where the promisee permits further performance and extends the period, the question whether the right to claim compensation has been waived has to be determined from the conduct and communications between the parties. In the present case, the extensions granted by the Respondent were not unconditional extensions.”
Case Title : Eros Technologies Digital FZE v. Ayngaran International Media Private Limited & Ors.
Case Number : OA No. 454 of 2026 and A No. 2680 of 2026 in C.S. (Comm. Div.) No. 140 of 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 253
The Madras High Court has ruled that a copyright infringement dispute can be resolved through arbitration when the parties have agreed to that mode of dispute resolution, holding that the civil remedy available under the Copyright Act does not prevent arbitration.
Justice K. Kumaresh Babu ruled,
“It is true that Section 55 provides for a civil remedy in an infringement of a copyright. There can be no doubt that the civil remedy can also be by a process of arbitration, as arbitration is in the form of alternative dispute resolution between the parties, and if agreed between them...”
The ruling came in a dispute over rights in certain cinematograph films claimed by Eros Technologies Digital FZE through a chain of assignments.
Sikkim High Court
Case Title State of Sikkim v. Nimmi Oberoi
Case Number CRP. No. 6 of 2026
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC (SI) 2
The Sikkim High Court has held that a judge who earlier decided an application for interim protection in an arbitration dispute does not have to automatically recuse from hearing a subsequent challenge to the arbitral award arising from the same arbitration.
Justice Bhaskar Raj Pradhan observed that automatic recusal would not be required unless the State of Sikkim could demonstrate a real and reasonable apprehension of bias. Allowing such a recusal, according to the court, would be akin to allowing parties to choose their judges.
"I am also of the considered view that the learned Judge who decided the application under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act does not have to automatically recuse from subsequently hearing the appeal under section 34 arising from the same arbitration unless the State of Sikkim is able to demonstrate a real and reasonable apprehension of bias. If an application for recusal is permitted on the mere asking on the ground that the learned Judge had decided one way or the other earlier on an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act, it would lead to the party choosing their Judge which would not be proper for administration of justice"
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case Title : The Project Director, National Highways Authority of India Project Implementation Unit v. Kandukuri Rama & Others
Case Number : Writ Appeal No. 799 of 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(APH) 49
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has recently ruled that a party challenging an arbitral award under the National Highways Act, 1956 cannot ordinarily bypass the statutory remedy under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The party cannot directly approach the court under Article 226 of the Constitution
“The N.H. Act and the Act, 1996 are complete code. The statute provides the remedy under Section 34 of the Act, 1996 to challenge the award of the arbitrator on specified grounds and any party aggrieved from the decision under Section 34 has the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 37 of the Act. So, ordinarily a challenge to an award shall be made in proceedings under Section 34 of the Act, 1996 on the statutorily recognized grounds. Challenge to the award directly under Article 226 of the Constitution of India without taking recourse to Section 34 of the Act, 1996, in the absence of any well recognized exceptions being attracted, must ordinarily fail on the ground of statutory alternative remedy. ” a Division Bench of Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Purushottam Kumar Chintalapudi observed.
Case Title : Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. v. Danieli and C Officine Meccaniche S.p.A. & Ors.
Case Number : I.C.O.M.A.O.A. No. 1 of 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(APH) 53
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that the courts at Visakhapatnam have jurisdiction to hear Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd.'s challenge to an arbitral award, despite the arbitral tribunal later recording New Delhi as the seat of arbitration.
Justice Balaji Medamalli observed that the parties had agreed to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Visakhapatnam courts while separately providing for different venues for conducting the arbitration.
“In the instant case, Article 18 of the agreement clearly stipulates that the Courts at Visakhapatnam shall have exclusive jurisdiction, which would exclude the parties from contending that the seat of arbitration is at somewhere else. The agreement, after excluding all other Courts except the Courts at Visakhapatnam, stated that the venue may be at a different place,” the court held.
Punjab & Haryana High Court
Case Title : Union of India and others v. M/s Triveni Constructions
Case Number : CWP-38566-2025 (O&M)
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(PNH) 40
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has recently ruled that an arbitral award can be executed before any court where the judgment debtor's assets are located and is not restricted to the place where the award was passed.
Dismissing a writ petition filed by the Union of India and others against Triveni Constructions, Justice Jasgurpreet Singh Puri observed that once an arbitral award is made, the arbitrator's mandate comes to an end and the award is not the decree of any particular court.
Referring to the Supreme Court's rulings in Sundaram Finance Ltd. v. Abdul Samad and Cheran Properties Ltd. v. Kasturi and Sons Ltd., the court observed:
"It is not the case where there are no assets of the petitioners located in Chandigarh and just because an award is passed in Patna (Bihar) would not mean that execution would also lie only at Patna because once the award is passed, the mandate of the arbitrator terminates and the award is not a decree of a particular Court and is only by way of a legal fiction. Hence, the award can be filed for execution before any Court anywhere in the country where such decree can be executed."
Employee's Death During Appeal Does Not Nullify Disciplinary Punishment: Punjab & Haryana High Court
Case Title Sukhjinder Singh v. Punjab State Coop. Supply & Marketing Fed. Ltd. & Anr
Case Number CWP-7516-2013 (O&M)
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC(PNH) 52
The Punjab & Haryana High Court on 2 September held that an employee's death during the pendency of a departmental appeal does not automatically nullify a disciplinary punishment imposed during his lifetime.
Justice Sandeep Moudgil dismissed a writ petition filed by Sukhjinder Singh, son of former Punjab State Cooperative Supply & Marketing Federation Ltd. (Markfed) Branch Officer M.S. Cheema, challenging the reduction of his father's pay by two stages for calculating retiral dues over negligence relating to a shortage of paddy stocks worth about Rs. 26 lakh. The Bench held:
“The principle emerging from the aforesaid decision is that where the disciplinary enquiry has already culminated and a punishment has been imposed during the lifetime of the employee, the subsequent death of the employee during pendency of an appeal does not automatically nullify the punishment already imposed.”
Chhattisgarh High Court
Officers Representing Union Of India Cannot Independently Challenge Award: Chhattisgarh High Court
Case Title : General Manager/South East Central Railway & Anr. v. ARSS SIP (JV) & Ors.
Case Number : ARBA No. 66 of 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (CHH) 22
The Chhattisgarh High Court on 10 August held that officers or representatives appearing for the Union of India in arbitral proceedings cannot independently challenge an arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, merely because they represented the Union during the proceedings.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal dismissed an appeal filed by officers of the South East Central Railway, holding that where an arbitral award operates against the Union of India, only the Union can invoke Section 34 to seek its setting aside and its officers cannot exercise that right independently. The judges held:
“Representation of a party and being a party are two distinct concepts. An authorized officer, counsel, representative or functionary appearing on behalf of a party does not thereby become a separate party. The rights available under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 belong to the party contemplated by the Act of 1996 and cannot be independently exercised by the officer merely because he represented or acted for that party during the arbitral proceedings.”
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."
Case Title State of Chhattisgarh & Anr. v. ECI-Keystone (JV)
Case Number WP227 No. 768 of 2026
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC(CHH) 26
The Chhattisgarh High Court has recently held that government officers cannot be made personally liable for an unpaid arbitral award merely because they are responsible for processing or arranging payment on behalf of their department.
Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal observed, “The liability created by the award cannot, in execution, be converted into a personal monetary liability of an officer merely because such officer happens to be responsible for processing or arranging payment on behalf of the department.”
"If the award-debtor is a State department or authority, the Executing Court may certainly require the competent authority to disclose the position regarding assets, funds, sanctions or the steps taken for satisfaction of the award and may adopt the modes of execution permissible under Order XXI CPC; however, it cannot, merely for securing payment of a money award, impose upon individual officers a liability which does not flow from the award or from any adjudication in which they were personally liable", It added.
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."
Case Title : Gujarat Housing Board v. M/s. Cube Construction Engineering Limited
Case Number : R/First Appeal No. 4171 of 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (GUJ) 136
The Gujarat High Court on 18 September held that courts can impose costs to deter casual challenges to arbitral awards, observing that frivolous applications under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 burden courts with unnecessary litigation.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice D.N. Ray dismissed the Gujarat Housing Board's challenge to a Rs. 3.97 crore arbitral award in favour of Cube Construction Engineering Ltd. and imposed Rs. 3 lakh costs on the Board. The judges observed:
“The casual filing of applications under Sections 34 and 37 of the Act, 1996 burdening the Courts with unnecessary and frivolous litigation, needs to be curbed forthwith. The only deterrent which comes in our mind is imposition of costs by Courts under Section 34 as well as in 37 proceedings, at par with the arbitration costs which is imposed upon the losing party in accordance with the provisions of 31A of Act, 1996.”
Case Title National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Polymech Plast Machines Ltd.
Case Number R/First Appeal No. 3873 of 2014 with R/Cross Objection No. 15 of 2015
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC (GUJ) 130
The Gujarat High Court set aside majority awards granting Rs. 40.53 lakh to Polymech Plast Machines Limited in its insurance dispute with National Insurance Company Limited and upheld the minority award granting Rs. 4.25 lakh.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice D.N. Ray held that an arbitral award is vitiated by perversity where arbitrators rely on an office note as the governing insurance policy while excluding the policy containing the arbitration clause. The judges observed:
“To our mind, the greatest perversity which is apparent in the award in question is that the policy sought to be excluded by the learned Arbitrator contains the arbitration clause whereas, the policy sought to be relied upon by the said learned Arbitrators do not contain any arbitration clause. For this reason alone, the reliance upon the so-called policy to the exclusion of Fire Policy -'C' vitiate the awards.”
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.”
Case Title SRM Constructions Vs. UOI
Case Number Ex. Pet No.19 of 2025
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC(HP) 32
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that an execution petition filed in 2025 to enforce a 2012 arbitral award was within limitation.
It held that the period during which the award was deemed to be automatically stayed under the law then prevailing had to be excluded while calculating limitation.
Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua observed, “In the instant case, objections under Section 34 of the Act were preferred by the respondent-Judgment Debtor within the prescribed limitation period. Therefore, even though no separate application had been moved by the judgment debtor seeking stay of the arbitral award impugned therein, yet by virtue of the law laid down in the aforesaid decisions, there was deemed construction of automatic stay of award on the filing of petition under Section 34 of the Act. Such construction suspended the period of limitation from the date of the award i.e. 20.03.2012.”