Nominal Index
VPS Healthcare Private Limited & Anr v. Prabhat Kumar Srivastava & Anr, 2026 LLBiz SC 150
J&K Economic Reconstruction Agency v. Rash Builders India Private Limited, 2026 LLBiz SC 155
Nagreeeka Indcon Products Pvt. Ltd. v. Cargocare Logistics (India) Pvt. Ltd., 2026 LLBiz SC 158
CCDM Holdings LLC v The Republic of India S90/2025
Austin Hyundai (Austin Distributors Pvt Ltd) v. Axalta Coating Systems India Pvt Ltd, 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 387
MSA Global LLC (Oman) v. Engineering Projects (India) Limited, 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 385
Lifewell Diagnostics Private Limited v. Micron Laboratory, 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 376
Panchanan International Private Limited v. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 377
JLT Energy 9 SAS v. Hindustan Cleanenergy Limited & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 378
M/s Splendor Landbase Limited v. M/s NTT Data Global Delivery Services Private Limited, 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 384
Sarfaraz Munaf v. Siraj Ummer and Ors, 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 49
Sarfaraz Munaf Partner V/S Mr. Siraj Ummer And Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 49
Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation Ltd. v. Jai Laxmi Constructions Engineers and Contractors, 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 213
State of Goa v. M/s. U. P. State Bridge Corporation Ltd., 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 141
RKEC Projects Limited v. Maharashtra Maritime Board & Anr., 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 201
Mayank J. Shah And Ors. v. Raju V. Shah And Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 216
Shinde & Sons v. Godawari Marathwada Irrigation Development Corporation & Anr., 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 208
Flexing It Services Private Limited & Anr. v. Colvyn James Harris, 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 391
SRMB Srijan Limited v. Great Eastern Energy Corporation Limited, 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 86
Starlift Services Private Limited v. Syama Prasad Mookerjee Port, Kolkata; State of West Bengal v. Rajpath Contractors and Engineers Ltd & Anr., 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 87
Percept Talent Management Limited and Anr v. Sourav Chandidas Ganguly, 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 88
Ekta Shakti Foundation v. State of Assam & Anr., 2026 LLBiz HC (GAU) 12
Lokesh Anand Singhal & Another v Pride Realty and Others, 2026 LLBiz HC (GAU) 11
The State Of Madhya Pradesh v. M/S SMEC International Pvt. Ltd., 2026 LLBiz HC (MP) 22
Narayan Prasad v. State of Bihar, 2026 LLBiz HC (PAT) 7
Katta Srinivasu v. M/s IKF Finance Limited, 2026 LLBiz HC (APH) 32
M/s Galore Infotech Pvt. Ltd v. M/s SEW Krishnagar Bahrampore Highways Ltd, 2026 LLBiz HC (TEL) 11
Union of India v. Krishnapatnam Railway Company Limited and Anr, 2026 LLBiz HC (TEL) 14
Jumbo World Holdings Ltd. & Anr. v. Embassy Property Development Pvt. Ltd., 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 97
Rayat Educational and Research Trust (Regd.) v. Punjab Skill Development Mission, 2026 LLBiz HC (PNH) 20
Realsta Infratech Pvt Ltd v. M/s Pace Stock Broking Services Pvt Ltd., 2026 LLBiz HC (PNH) 22
Supreme Court
Case Title : VPS Healthcare Private Limited & Anr v. Prabhat Kumar Srivastava & Anr
Case Number : Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 23869 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 150
The Supreme Court on Monday held that obligations undertaken by promoters of Rockland Hospitals (now Medeor Hospitals) under a consent arbitral award are immediately enforceable and cannot be deferred until confirmation by the highest court of appeal. Setting aside the Delhi High Court's judgment, the Court termed its interpretation “paradoxical” for deferring the promoters' liability until confirmation by the 'Highest Court of Appeal'.
A Bench of Justices S.V.N. Bhatti and Prasanna B. Varale held that such an interpretation would render the undertaking under the consent award a nullity, which “cannot be the intention of the parties”. “The High Court's interpretation produces a paradox. If liability is payable only after confirmation by the Supreme Court, the Promoters can choose not to pursue the appeal to the Supreme Court, so no liability is confirmed against the Promoters. This would render the undertaking under Paragraph 32(a) meaningless. Nullity cannot be the intention of the parties to the Consent Award”, the court observed.
Case Title : J&K Economic Reconstruction Agency v. Rash Builders India Private Limited
Case Number : 2026 INSC 368
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 155
The Supreme Court of India has set aside an order of the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court which had declined to hear a challenge to an arbitral award on the ground that it was delivered in New Delhi, holding that jurisdiction lies with courts at the seat of arbitration and cannot shift based on where proceedings are conducted or the award is rendered. A Bench of Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Alok Aradhe said, “The mere fact that arbitral proceedings are conducted or the award is rendered at a particular place does not confer jurisdiction on courts of that place if it is different from the designated seat. The seat remains fixed unless expressly altered by agreement of the parties.”
Case Title : Nagreeeka Indcon Products Pvt. Ltd. v. Cargocare Logistics (India) Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 19026 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 158
The Supreme Court on Friday held that an arbitration clause using the word “can” does not make arbitration mandatory, ruling that parties cannot be compelled to arbitrate unless there is a clear and binding agreement to that effect under Section 7 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. A Division Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh held that the clause in question only indicates a possibility of arbitration and not a binding obligation.
“The clause subject matter of dispute in this appeal indicates merely the future possibility of referring disputes to arbitration and as such, it cannot be said to be a binding arbitration agreement. In other words, the possibility of arbitration being used to settle disputes is open however, for the disputes to be settled by arbitration, further agreement between the parties would be required and needless to add, such an agreement can only come into existence when both parties agree to the same. In that view of the matter, we are of the considered view that this appeal is bereft of merit,” the Court observed.
Australia High Court
Case Title : CCDM Holdings LLC v The Republic of India
Case Number : S90/2025
The High Court of Australia has dismissed an appeal seeking enforcement of an arbitral award of over USD 111 million against India, holding that ratifying the New York Convention does not amount to a waiver of sovereign immunity. The dispute arose from claims by Mauritian investors in Bengaluru-based Devas Multimedia Private Limited over the cancellation of a satellite spectrum deal between Antrix Corporation Limited, the commercial arm of the Indian Space Research Organisation, and Devas.
Holding that there is a strong presumption against waiver of foreign State immunity, a seven-judge bench led by Chief Justice Stephen Gageler observed: “In many States, including Australia, foreign State immunity is not absolute but is subject to a range of exceptions where the courts of the local State retain some jurisdiction over the foreign State as part of the local State's territorial sovereignty. But within the preserved area of immunity, there is a strong presumption that a foreign State has not abandoned its independence and autonomy by waiving that otherwise preserved immunity.”
Delhi High Court
Delhi High Court Upholds ₹39.6 Lakh Award Against Austin Hyundai In Paint Supply Dispute With Axalta
Case Title : Austin Hyundai (Austin Distributors Pvt Ltd) v. Axalta Coating Systems India Pvt Ltd
Case Number : FAO (COMM) 98/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 387
The Delhi High Court on Saturday upheld an arbitral award directing Austin Hyundai (Austin Distributors Pvt Ltd) to repay Rs 39.6 lakh to Axalta Coating Systems India Pvt Ltd, holding that termination of its Hyundai dealership did not extinguish its obligations under a separate supply agreement. A bench of Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Amit Mahajan held that the supply agreement imposed independent minimum purchase obligations and was not contingent on the continuation of the dealership.
“In the present case, the Arbitrator has specifically found that the Supply Agreement constituted an independent commercial arrangement containing express minimum purchase obligations for a defined contractual period and that no contractual term made its continuance contingent upon subsistence of the Hyundai Dealership Agreement. The question whether the two agreements were interdependent was thus examined on the basis of the contractual terms and evidentiary record, and answered by the Arbitrator upon appreciation of facts. No perversity, patent illegality, or jurisdictional infirmity in this finding, duly affirmed by the Court exercising jurisdiction under Section 34, has been demonstrated so as to warrant interference in appellate jurisdiction under Section 37,” the court observed.
Case Title : MSA Global LLC (Oman) v. Engineering Projects (India) Limited
Case Number : O.M.P.(EFA)(COMM.) 4/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 385
The Delhi High Court has refused to enforce a foreign award in favour of MSA Global LLC (Oman) against Engineering Projects (India) Limited. It held that the arbitrator's failure to disclose a prior arbitral association with the MSA's Chairman gave rise to justifiable doubts as to his independence. The Court said this non-disclosure deprived the respondent of the opportunity to assess and challenge such impartiality. It therefore rendered the award contrary to the public policy of India under Section 48(2)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Justice Jasmeet Singh observed, “Thus, the statutory scheme governing arbitration makes it abundantly clear that impartiality and independence of the Arbitrator constitute a golden thread that runs through the entire arbitral framework. Any circumstance which undermines this neutrality strikes at the very legitimacy of the adjudicatory process."
Case Title : Lifewell Diagnostics Private Limited v. Micron Laboratory
Case Number : ARB.P. 36/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 376
The Delhi High Court has held that a dispute resolution clause in an arbitration agreement between Lifewell Diagnostics Private Limited and Micron Laboratory, which states that disputes “may be referred to arbitration”, can constitute a valid and binding arbitration agreement where the same clause prescribes a detailed procedure for arbitration and provides that the arbitral award shall be final and binding.
A single bench of Justice Mini Pushkarna observed that the use of the word “may” does not render the clause non-binding when the clause, read as a whole, reflects a clear intention to arbitrate. “The dispute resolution clause, by elucidating the detailed procedure for conduct of arbitration and using the terminology that, 'arbitration shall be conducted as follows', as also by stipulating the governing law and making the arbitration award final and binding on the parties, strongly points towards the unambiguous intention of the parties to refer the disputes to arbitration.”
Delhi High Court Upholds Arbitral Award Directing Flexing It To Convert CCDs Into Equity
Case Title : Flexing It Services Private Limited & Anr. v. Colvyn James Harris
Case Number : O.M.P. (COMM) 111/2025 & OMP (ENF.) (COMM.) 101/2025
CITATION :2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 391
The Delhi High Court recently upheld an arbitral award directing Flexing It Services Private Limited to convert investor Colvyn James Harris's compulsorily convertible debentures into equity equivalent to 2% of the company's shareholding as on January 31, 2017. It also upheld the arbitral finding that repeated acknowledgments of liability in correspondence extended the limitation period.
Declining to set aside the award in a challenge under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the Court allowed enforcement proceedings to continue.
Referring to the arbitral tribunal's findings on limitation, the court noted that the tribunal had found that the correspondence “clearly show repeated acknowledgements of the 1st Respondent's obligation to convert the Claimant's CCDs in accordance with the provision of the Agreement.”
The court further noted the tribunal's finding that “a fresh period of limitation would be deemed to have commenced from the date of each such acknowledgement.”
Delhi High Court Partly Sets Aside Arbitral Award For Denying Pre-Reference Interest Without Reasons
Case Title : Panchanan International Private Limited v. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited
Case Number : O.M.P. (COMM) 8/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 377
The Delhi High Court has held that where an arbitrator, despite finding prolonged and unjustified delay by an insurer in settling a claim, fails to provide reasons as mandated under Section 31(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for denying pre-reference interest, the award suffers from patent illegality and is liable to be set aside.
Partly setting aside an award in a dispute between Panchanan International Private Limited and the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, a Bench of Justice Mini Pushkarna observed, “Once the learned Arbitrator found the respondent responsible for prolonged and unjustified delay, denial of interest for pre-reference period required cogent reasons, which are entirely absent in the impugned Arbitral Award.”
Case Title : JLT Energy 9 SAS v. Hindustan Cleanenergy Limited & Ors.
Case Number : FAO(OS)(COMM) 14/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 378 To
The Delhi High Court has held that where an agreement has, prima facie, ceased to subsist, courts cannot grant interim relief under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in a manner that effectively revives such a contract. Dismissing an appeal filed by JLT Energy 9 SAS, a Division Bench of Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Amit Mahajan upheld a Single Judge's refusal to restrain Hindustan Cleanenergy Limited from creating third-party rights in its solar project assets.
“Where, upon a prima facie examination of the contractual framework and the material placed on record, the Court arrives at the conclusion that the underlying Agreement has ceased to subsist, the jurisdiction under Section 9 cannot be invoked to grant interim relief so as to resurrect or revive a terminated contract. Grant of interim protection in such circumstances would amount to granting final relief in the guise of an interim measure and would run contrary to the settled principles governing Section 9,” the Bench observed.
Case Title : M/s Splendor Landbase Limited v. M/s NTT Data Global Delivery Services Private Limited
Case Number : O.M.P. (COMM) 479/2025, 480/2025, 481/2025, 483/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 384
The Delhi High Court has recently held that parties can challenge arbitral awards covering both claims and counterclaims through a composite petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, rejecting an objection that separate petitions were required as they amounted to distinct “decrees”. Emphasising that Section 36(1), which states that an arbitral award “shall be enforced as if it were a decree of the court,” is confined to the stage of enforcement, the Court observed: "In the present context, the fiction operates only to enable the enforcement and execution of an arbitral award by borrowing the procedural machinery of the CPC. It does not equate an arbitral award to a decree for all purposes, nor does it import the entire procedural regime of the CPC into arbitral proceedings. Significantly, it does not govern or alter the manner in which an arbitral award may be challenged, which remains exclusively regulated by Sections 34 and 37 of the A&C Act".
Karnataka High Court
Case Title : Sarfaraz Munaf v. Siraj Ummer and Ors
Case Number : Commercial Appeal No. 277 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 49
The Karnataka High Court has held that, in the facts of the case, a retired partner can seek to refer a dispute to arbitration to defend himself in a recovery suit, and such a plea cannot be rejected merely because the partnership firm was not registered. A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C.M. Poonacha was considering an appeal challenging an order of the Commercial Court, which had refused to refer the parties to arbitration under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
Dealing with the argument that the Commercial Courts Act overrides the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, the bench held that the contention was “bereft of any merit”. “Arbitration is an alternative dispute resolution mechanism outside the Court's adjudicatory processes. However, the courts have a limited role in arbitration matters. Section 5 of the A&C Act also provides the extent of judicial intervention in matters governed by Part I of the A&C Act." It added: “The CC Act does not oust arbitration, but provides for recourse to the Commercial Division, the Commercial Appellate Division, or the Commercial Court, to the limited extent as contemplated under the A&C Act.”
Mere Allegation Of Fraud Not A Bar To Arbitration: Karnataka High Court
Case Title : Sarfaraz Munaf Partner V/S Mr. Siraj Ummer And Ors.
Case Number : Comap No. 277 Of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 49
The Karnataka High Court on 8 April held that mere allegations of fraud or prior monetary transactions do not oust arbitration where the dispute arises from agreements containing arbitration clauses. A Bench comprising Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C.M. Poonacha held that Courts must refer parties to arbitration under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act unless a party shows that no prima facie arbitration agreement exists. It further noted the interplay with the Commercial Courts Act and stated:
“the CC Act does not oust arbitration, but provides for recourse to the Commercial Division, the Commercial Appellate Division, or the Commercial Court, to the limited extent as contemplated under the A&C Act.”
Bombay High Court
Bombay High Court Sets Aside Arbitral Award Against MSRDC In Toll Collection Dispute
Case Title : Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation Ltd. v. Jai Laxmi Constructions Engineers and Contractors
Case Number : Commercial Arbitration Petition No. 899 of 2018
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 213
The Bombay High Court has recently set aside an arbitral award in a dispute between Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation Ltd. (MSRDC) and Jai Laxmi Constructions Engineers and Contractors, holding that no arbitration agreement existed governing disputes under the Toll Collection Agreement and that an arbitration clause contained in a separate lender-related agreement could not be invoked for such disputes.
A bench of Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan observed, “Therefore, the main test of Section 7(1) has not been met by the arbitration clause in the Replacement Agreement when applied to disputes raised entirely under the Toll Collection Agreement. On the disputes under the Toll Collection Agreement, the parties have agreed that Jai Laxmi would have resort to the Principal Civil Court at Mumbai."
Case Title : State of Goa, Rep. By Executive Engineer, Public Works Department Versus M/s. U. P. State Bridge Corporation Ltd.
Case Number : APPEAL UNDER ARBITRATION ACT NO. 6 OF 2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 141
The Goa Bench of the Bombay High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by the State of Goa challenging an arbitral award passed in favor of U.P. State Bridge Corporation Ltd., holding that an arbitral award could not be set aside merely on the ground that one of the arbitrators nominated by the contractor had served as the Managing Director and consultant of the corporation. Justice Suman Shyam further observed that in the absence of material demonstrating actual bias or likelihood of bias, an arbitral award cannot be set aside.
"Therefore, in the absence of any material brought on record to demonstrate bias-ness, the mere fact that a former employee of the Corporation has been nominated as an Arbitrator, by itself, would not be enough to raise a justifiable doubt as regards his neutrality so as to vitiate the Award."
Case Title : RKEC Projects Limited v. Maharashtra Maritime Board & Anr.
Case Number : Commercial Arbitration Petition (L) No. 7085 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 201
The Bombay High Court has recently declined to restrain the invocation and encashment of bank guarantees worth Rs 31.86 crore in a dispute between RKEC Projects Limited and the Maharashtra Maritime Board over the construction of a passenger jetty and terminal near the Gateway of India in Mumbai. The ruling came on a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which allows courts to grant temporary protection until disputes are decided through arbitration, before Justice Sandeep V. Marne.
At the heart of the decision was a settled principle. Bank guarantees stand on their own footing, and courts do not ordinarily interfere. “It is only in exceptional and rare cases, where there is an element of egregious fraud or where the case involves irretrievable injury or irretrievable injustice or where there are special equities, that the court would be justified in making interim order restraining encashment of bank guarantee,” the Court observed.
Appeal Not Maintainable Against Arbitral Tribunal's Impleadment Order: Bombay High Court
Case Title : Mayank J. Shah And Ors. Versus Raju V. Shah And Ors.
Case Number : COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 409 OF 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 216
The Bombay High Court on 8 April, held that an order allowing impleadment of parties cannot be challenged in appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 merely because the Arbitral Tribunal passed it under Section 17, which empowers the Tribunal to issue interim and procedural orders during arbitration to manage the proceedings and grant temporary reliefs. A Bench of Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan clarified that Section 37 contains an exhaustive list of appealable orders, and procedural directions such as joinder of parties do not fall within its scope. He observed:
“Ordinarily, an order of impleadment which is part and parcel of procedural directions and indeed even affecting substantive rights of the parties owing to joinder being allowed, would not be appealable under Section 37(2)(b) of the Act. The jurisdiction under Section 37 is one that entails an exhaustive listing of permissible appeals, which are a creature of statute. Impleadment of a party would not constitute an interlocutory protective measure as envisaged under Section 17 of the Act.”
Arbitrator Must Follow Fair, Evidence-Based Process Even In Ex-Parte Proceedings: Bombay High Court
Case Title : Shinde & Sons v. Godawari Marathwada Irrigation Development Corporation & Anr.
Case Number : Commercial Arbitration Appeal No. 1 of 2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 208
On 15 April, the Bombay High Court held that even in ex-parte proceedings, an arbitrator must ensure a fair, evidence-based and unbiased process in terms of Section 25 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and cannot treat claims as established merely because the other side remains absent. A Division Bench of Justices Arun R. Pedneker and Vaishali Patil Jadhav dismissed the appeal filed by Shinde & Sons and upheld the order of the District Judge at Beed setting aside the arbitral award under Section 34 of the Act. It held:
“It was necessary for the arbitrator to follow the procedure under Section 25 of the Arbitration Act. Although reference is made to Section 25 of the Act in the award, the evidence in support of the claims appears to be lacking and the claims cannot be said to be established.”
Calcutta High Court
Profits Earned Do Not Negate Damages Claim In Arbitration: Calcutta High Court
Case Title : SRMB SRIJAN LIMITED -VS- GREAT EASTERN ENERGY CORPORATION LIMITED
Case Number : AO-COM 30 OF 2024 WITH AP-COM 281 OF 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 86
On Monday, 13 April, the Calcutta High Court held that earning profits does not, by itself, defeat a claim for damages arising from breach of contract and upheld the arbitral award in favour of Great Eastern Energy Corporation Limited (GEECL) A Division Bench of Justices Arijit Banerjee and Om Narayan Rai dismissed SRMB Srijan Ltd's appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, clarifying that damages are not limited to actual loss but also include loss of expected or additional profits.
The judges observed: “If a person earns profits by employing all avenues that he has, he cannot be said to have failed in mitigating his damages. But, can such earning of profit alone always lead to the conclusion that there has been no damage at all? The answer has to be in the negative as there can be situations where a person could be entitled to more profits than what he has actually earned but has been deprived of the further profit element due to the breach of the contract complained of.”
Case Title : Starlift Services Private Limited v. Syama Prasad Mookerjee Port, Kolkata; State of West Bengal v. Rajpath Contractors and Engineers Ltd & Anr.
Case Number : APO/48/2021 with AP/590/2011; APO/141/2023 with AP/915/2011
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 87
The Calcutta High Court on 9 April held that once a Commercial Division is constituted under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, non-commercial benches cease to have jurisdiction to decide commercial arbitration matters, and any judgment delivered thereafter is a nullity.
The Court held: “If a non- Commercial Court or a non-Commercial Division proceeds to decide a commercial dispute involving a specified value, subsequent to the constitution of the Commercial Division, in which such proceedings was pending before the Court, then, on the score that such non-Commercial Court decided the rights between the parties on a procedural regime different to those prescribed under the Act of 2015, the decision rendered would be vitiated.”
Case Title : Percept Talent Management Limited and Anr vs. Sourav Chandidas Ganguly
Case Number : AO-COM/23/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 88
The Calcutta High Court on Thursday dismissed an appeal by Percept Talent Management Ltd., upholding a Rs. 14.49 crore arbitral award in favour of former Indian cricketer Sourav Ganguly and finding that the company had lost its right to terminate a 2003 Player Representation Agreement by waiting too long and continuing to act as his agent. The judgment was delivered on April 16, 2026 by a Division Bench of Justice Debangsu Basak and Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi.
The court also upheld the arbitral tribunal's finding that payments Ganguly received from the IPL franchise Kolkata Knight Riders (KKR) did not fall within the revenue-sharing arrangement under the Player Representation Agreement (PRA), which governed his commercial and endorsement rights.
Gauhati High Court
Case Title : Ekta Shakti Foundation v. State of Assam & Anr.
Case Number : Arb.P./27/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(GAU) 12
The Gauhati High Court has appointed its former judge Justice Achintya Malla Bujor Barua as sole arbitrator in a dispute between Ekta Shakti Foundation and the State of Assam, holding that, in the peculiar facts of the case, an arbitration plea can be entertained even without a formal notice where a valid arbitration agreement is undisputed. A Bench of Justice Soumitra Saikia said, "it appears that the dispute between the parties have not been resolved and on the other hand there is a method for taking recourse to resolving such disputes expressly agreed upon by the parties by way of reference to arbitration. The only hurdle that is presented before the Court by the Respondents is non issuance of a notice under section 21 and thereby the power required to be invoked by the referral Court under section 11(6) cannot be invoked until and unless such agreed terms are enforced by the parties in terms of the said agreement. "
Case Title : Lokesh Anand Singhal & Another v Pride Realty and Others
Case Number : Case No. : Arb.A./5/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(GAU) 11
The Gauhati High Court on 31 March, held that once the State designates a Court as a Commercial Appellate Court under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, the appellate forum is determined strictly by such designation and not by the ordinary pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Judge. A Bench comprising Justice Mridul Kumar Kalita dismissed an appeal filed by Lokesh Anand Singhal and Shilpi Anand Singhal, holding that the High Court lacked jurisdiction as the statutory appellate remedy lay before the designated Commercial Appellate Court.
The Bench observed: “Section 13(1) of the Commercial Court Act provides that 'any person aggrieved by the judgment or order of a Commercial Court below the level of a District Judge may appeal to the Commercial Appellate Court within the period of sixty days from the date of judgment or order'.”
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Even Consent Cannot Cure Lack of Jurisdiction In HC Appointment Of Arbitrator In ICA: MP High Court
Case Title : The State Of Madhya Pradesh Versus M/S SMEC International Pvt. Ltd
Case Number : Arbitration Appeal No. 266 Of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (MP) 22
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that an arbitrator appointed by a High Court in an international commercial arbitration has no authority in law to decide the dispute, and any award passed in such proceedings is void. A bench of Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Pradeep Mittal said, “The conjoint reading of Section 11(6) and Section 11(12)(a), ACA makes it abundantly clear that the power to appoint an arbitrator in an ICA lies exclusively with the Supreme Court. The High Court has no jurisdiction to appoint an arbitrator in an international commercial arbitration, and such power is in the exclusive domain of the Supreme Court. The aforesaid provisions are non-derogable and any order passed by the High Court appointing an arbitrator in ICA suffers from complete lack of jurisdiction and is a nullity in law.”
Patna High Court
Patna High Court Sets Aside Award Based On Pleadings Alone Without Evidence, Cites Natural Justice
Case Title : Narayan Prasad v. State of Bihar
Case Number : Commercial Appeal No. 1 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(PAT) 7
The Patna High Court has recently set aside an arbitral award and a subsequent order upholding it, holding that an award based solely on pleadings without proof of documents violates the principles of natural justice and cannot be sustained.
The ruling came in a dispute arising from an excavation contract between contractor Narayan Prasad and the State of Bihar, where the contractor had been directed to pay Rs 7.41 lakh as excess payment and Rs 6.68 lakh towards rectification of a ditch, along with interest at 12% per annum. A Division Bench of Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Justice Soni Shrivastava observed, “In the present case, it is evident from the various orders passed by the learned arbitrator that at no stage of the proceeding, the learned Arbitrator decided as to whether to hold oral hearings for the presentation of evidence or for oral argument. The pleadings in form of statement of claims and statement of defence cannot take place of the oral or documentary evidence. The minimum thing which was required to be done was to call upon the parties to admit or deny the documents submitted by both of them… Even as strict rules of evidence would not apply but these are to be followed as fundamental policy of law. It is also in consonance with the principles of natural justice.”
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case Title : Katta Srinivasu v. M/s IKF Finance Limited
Case Number : Civil Revision Petition Nos. 2345 of 2022 & 419 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(APH) 32
The Andhra Pradesh High Court on 10 April reiterated that unilateral appointment of a sole arbitrator by a finance company violated the principle of equal treatment under Article 14 of the Constitution, and set aside execution proceedings arising from an arbitral award passed for recovery of loan dues. A Division Bench of Justices Ravi Nath Tilhari and Balaji Medamalli allowed civil revision petitions filed by Katta Srinivasu and another petitioner against IKF Finance Limited, and held that the arbitral award was without jurisdiction and unenforceable.
The Court held: “We reach to the conclusion that the appointment of the sole Arbitrator unilaterally appointed by the Finance Company is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It was invalid. The Arbitrator had no jurisdiction, it lacked inherent jurisdiction to pass the Award. The ineligibility under law under Section 12 read with Seventh Schedule, was attracted with respect to the person legal Manager of the 1st respondent Finance Company was attracted. So, he could also not appoint/nominate 2nd respondent as the sole arbitrator. There was no express waiver by any agreement in writing in terms of proviso to Sub-Section (5) of Section 12 of the Act 1996.”
Telangana High Court
Case Title : M/s Galore Infotech Pvt. Ltd v. M/s SEW Krishnagar Bahrampore Highways Ltd
Case Number : Arbitration Application No. 161 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(TEL) 11
The Telangana High Court has recently held that Section 14 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (provision for termination of an arbitrator's mandate) is a narrow provision and cannot be used to indirectly challenge the validity of an arbitrator's appointment once that issue has attained finality. Justice K. Lakshman dismissed an application filed by Galore Infratech Pvt. Ltd. under Sections 14, 15 and 11 of the Act. The company had sought termination of the arbitrator's mandate and appointment of an independent arbitrator in its dispute with SEW Krishnagar Bahrampore Highways Ltd.
Refusing the plea, the court observed, “Section 14 of the Act provides for termination of the mandate of an arbitrator where he becomes de jure or de facto unable to perform his functions or fails to act without undue delay. The scope of the provision is narrow and is confined to situations where the arbitrator suffers from a legal or factual incapacity which renders continuation of the mandate impossible. The provision cannot be invoked as a substitute for challenging the validity of the appointment itself”
Case Title : Union of India v. Krishnapatnam Railway Company Limited and Anr
Case Number : Commercial Court Appeal No. 7 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(TEL) 14
The Telangana High Court has recently held that the Railways' SCR treasury account is not immune from attachment in execution proceedings in their entirety and that only specifically identifiable exempt amounts can be protected. Clarifying that exemptions under Section 60 of the Civil Procedure Code apply only to identifiable portions of funds and not entire accounts, the Court said, “It is also pertinent to note that the proviso to section 60(1) of the CPC carve-out exceptions from attachment in respect of 'the following particulars' which indicates that only certain specified amounts are immune from attachment, as opposed to the entire account itself. The appellant, however, seeks to take advantage of the proviso to section 60(1) of the C.P.C. in respect of the entirety of the Treasury Account", the court observed.
Madras High Court
Madras High Court Dismisses Appeal Against Execution Order After Arbitral Award Attains Finality
Case Title : Jumbo World Holdings Ltd. & Anr. v. Embassy Property Development Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : OSA (CAD) No. 6 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 97
After Jumbo World Holdings Ltd. and Dandavati Investments and Trading Company Pvt. Ltd. failed in their challenge to an arbitral award up to the Supreme Court, the Madras High Court has refused to entertain their appeal against an execution order passed in proceedings to give effect to the award, holding that such orders are not appealable under the statutory framework.
“In the instant case, the order appealed is against the directions given in an Execution Petition. The Award had been challenged under Section 34 of the Act and the challenge had failed. It was further challenged under Section 37 of the Act and that challenge had also failed. The further appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court had also failed. The appellants will have to abide by the Rule of Law at some point of time. No special leverage could be granted to them to evade the Award granted by the Arbitral Tribunal, confirmed by the learned Single Judge, by the Division Bench and by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Award has become final. The directions given by the learned Single Judge are not appealable in nature as they cannot be termed as a decree of the Court. They are not orders which fall under Order XLIII of the Code of Civil Procedure. ”, the bench observed.
Punjab and Haryana High Court
Case Title : Rayat Educational and Research Trust (Regd.) vs Punjab Skill Development Mission
Case Number : ARB-527-2025 (O&M)
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (PNH) 20
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that merely labelling a clause as “Arbitration and Applicable Laws” does not make it an arbitration agreement, refusing to appoint an arbitrator where the clause itself did not provide for the reference of disputes to arbitration.
“A perusal of the aforesaid Clause 8.1 would show that although the heading of the Clause is stated as “Arbitration and Applicable Laws” but the substance of the Clause provides that any dispute arising in connection with the MOU, which cannot be resolved amicably, shall be referred to the Empowered Committee for DDUGKY in the Ministry of Rural Development, Government of India. Therefore, in the Clause itself, there is no such reference made to arbitration or to follow any arbitration process and the mere fact that the heading of the Clause states “Arbitration and Applicable Laws” would not mean that the same can be given the meaning of an arbitration clause,” the court observed.
'May Refer To Arbitration' Clause Valid Where Agreement Shows Clear Intent: Punjab and Haryana HC
Case Title : Realsta Infratech Pvt Ltd v. M/s Pace Stock Broking Services Pvt Ltd
Case Number : ARB-758-2025 (O&M)
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (PNH) 22
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that a clause in a Leave and License Agreement between Realsta Infratech Pvt Ltd and Pace Stock Broking Services Pvt Ltd constituted a valid arbitration clause, despite using the expression “may refer to arbitration," as the provision, read as a whole, reflected a clear intention to arbitrate upon failure of amicable settlement. Justice Jasgurpreet Singh Puri appointed former Delhi High Court judge Justice Talwant Singh as the sole arbitrator to decide the disputes between the parties.
The court observed, “In the first part, the parties are to amicably resolve the dispute by way of negotiation and in case this is not done, then the party raising a dispute may refer the dispute for resolution by arbitration and thereafter in the second part, the procedure and seat of arbitration have been prescribed. The aforesaid continuity in two phases itself clearly suggests the intention of the parties that in default of settlement through amicable negotiation, the parties may refer the dispute for resolution through arbitration.”