Nominal Index
V.K. John S. Mukanchand Bothra and HUF (Died) Represented By Lrs. & Ors., 2026 LLBiz SC 163
Home Care Retail Marts Pvt. Ltd. v. Haresh N. Sanghavi, 2026 LLBiz SC 168
UPM Kymmene Corporation v. The State Trading Corporation of India Ltd., 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 413
Delhi Jal Board v. M/s Metro Waste Handling Private Limited, 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 394
Titagarh Rail Systems Limited v. Railway Board, Ministry of Railways, 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 406
Indian Sugar Exim Corporation Limited v. Sakuma Exports Limited, 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 404
Sri Swarna and Co. v. Chief Engineer (Construction), Southern Railways, 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 108
J.K. Exim Private Limited v. Director of Women and Child Development, H.P. & Anr., 2026 LLBiz HC (HP) 13
Chief General Manager Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and Ors. v. M/s Talat Construction Kharasia Naka, Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh, 2026 LLBiz HC (CHH) 9
Anand Khedia & Ors. v. Commissioner-cum-Arbitrator & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC (CHH) 11
Ramky Elsmex Hyderabad Ring Road Limited v. Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC (TEL) 19
M/s Kendriya Bhandar v. Atlantis Agritech Private Limited and Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC (TEL) 17
VCA Estate Private Limited v. Baldev Raj and others, 2026 LLBiz HC (PNH) 24
Yashpreet Singh and Ors. v. Union of India and Another, 2026 LLBiz HC (PNH) 23
UK Mechanical Engineering Pvt Ltd v. Larsen and Toubro Ltd, 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 97
Saltee Infrastructure Limited v. Shivam Industrial Parks and Estates Ltd, 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 90
Pho Com Net Pvt Ltd and Anr. v. The Office of the Chief Electoral Officer, 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 94
Mackintosh Burn Limited v. Damodar Valley Corporation, 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 95
M/s NBCC India Limited v. M/s J.G. Engineers Pvt. Ltd., 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 96
Ssangyong Engineering and Construction Company Ltd v. M/s S.B. Engineering Associates, 2026 LLBiz HC (MP) 26
SS Associates v. Dilip Buildcon, 2026 LLBiz HC (MP) 25
Madhya Pradesh Power Transmission Company Limited v VK Udyog Ltd., 2026 LLBiz HC (MP) 28
Cherutty Muhammed and Ors. v. Sevens Football Association, 2026 LLBiz HC (KER) 70
Airports Authority of India v. Satyavan Vishnu Agate, Sole Proprietor of M/s Vision Enterprises, 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 215
IIFL Capital Services Limited v. Sukhadeo Gorakha Bhil, 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 225
M/s U.P. Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd. v. M/s Adani Enterprises Ltd., 2026 LLBiz HC (ALL) 34
Debashish Das v. State of Tripura, 2026 LLBiz HC (TRI) 2
Rajasthan Chess Association v. Ashok Kumar Bhargava & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC (RAJ) 14
Supreme Court
Legal Representatives Have Right To Challenge Arbitral Awards That Bind Them: Supreme Court
Case Title : V.K. John S. Mukanchand Bothra and HUF (Died) Represented By Lrs. & Ors.
Case Number : SLP 9C) 16162 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 163
The Supreme Court on Monday held that if an arbitral award can be enforced against the legal representatives of a deceased party, they must also have the right to challenge it under the law, holding that such representatives “step into the shoes” of the deceased for the purposes of arbitral proceedings. A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Vipul M. Pancholi observed that the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is a self-contained code and emphasises continuity of arbitral proceedings, particularly in situations where a party dies during the process.
“In our view, when the scheme of the Act is towards continuity of arbitral proceedings, in the event of death of a party, the natural corollary, evident from the definition clause itself, is that upon the death of a party, legal representatives' step into the shoes of a party for the purposes of the Act,” the court said.
Unsuccessful Party Can Seek Interim Relief Under Arbitration Act: Supreme Court
Case Title : Home Care Retail Marts Pvt. Ltd. vs. Haresh N. Sanghavi
Case Number : Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 29972/2015, 26876/2014 & 11139/2020
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 168
The Supreme Court of India on Friday held that any party to an arbitration agreement, including one that has been unsuccessful in arbitral proceedings and has no enforceable award in its favour, is entitled to seek interim relief under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. It clarified that such relief can be sought at the post-award stage but before enforcement. A Bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Manoj Misra observed that “Section 9 of the Act commences with the expression 'a party', which, by virtue of Section 2(h) of the Act, is defined as 'a party to an arbitration agreement'. Neither Section 2(h) nor Section 9 of the Act draws any distinction between a successful and an unsuccessful party in arbitration proceedings.”
High Courts
Delhi High Court
Case Title : UPM Kymmene Corporation v. The State Trading Corporation of India Ltd.
Case Number : EX.P. 82/2012
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 413
The Delhi High Court has said, in an arbitration dispute, that once a judgment debtor deposits the decretal amount in court, its liability stands discharged to that extent.
It went on to make clear that execution proceedings cannot be reopened simply because the decree holder decides not to withdraw the money and later tries to take advantage of a more favourable exchange rate.
Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar refused to reopen execution proceedings that had already been disposed of in May 2022, noting that the decretal amount of Rs. 2,89,90,273, arising from US$ 1,30,681.52 along with interest, had been deposited by The State Trading Corporation and remained available for withdrawal, which UPM Kymmene Corporation consciously chose not to avail.
Imposing Rs.1 lakh as costs for misuse of the judicial process, the court observed:
"In law, once a Judgment Debtor deposits the decretal amount in compliance with a judicial order, the obligation qua that extent stands discharged, and the amount is deemed to be placed at the disposal of the Decree Holder. The Court, in such circumstances, merely acts as a custodian of the funds. The liability of the Judgment Debtor does not remain in a state of perpetual flux merely because the Decree Holder elects not to withdraw the amount. To hold otherwise would be to ignore the settled principle that payment into Court, in compliance with judicial direction, constitutes satisfaction to that extent”
No Damages Without Proof Of Loss: Delhi High Court Partly Sets Aside Arbitral Award Against DJB
Case Title : Delhi Jal Board Versus M/S Metrro Waste Handling Private Limited
Case Number : O.M.P. (COMM) 277/2025 & I.A. 17526/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 394
The Delhi High Court on Monday partly set aside an arbitral award in favour of a contractor against the Delhi Jal Board (DJB), holding that damages cannot be granted on the basis of projected turnover without proof of actual loss. Justice Avneesh Jhingan held that "the award of damages in absence of evidence on record of actual loss suffered or a finding recorded that the loss suffered cannot be proved is in violation of Sections 73 and 74 of the Contract Act and against public policy. The tribunal awarded damages without considering the value of the machines, the usage these were put to, loss of business and other factors"
Case Title : Titagarh Rail Systems Limited v. Railway Board, Ministry of Railways
Case Number : FAO(OS) (COMM) 103/2026 & 104/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 406
On 13 April, the Delhi High Court held that an arbitral award is vitiated where the sole arbitrator is ineligible under Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and clarified that such ineligibility cannot be cured by implied consent, procedural participation, or panel-based appointments unless there is an express written waiver after disputes arise. A Division Bench of Justices C. Hari Shankar and Om Prakash Shukla dismissed the appeals filed by Titagarh Rail Systems Limited and affirmed the judgment of the Single Judge setting aside the arbitral award. It held:
“In fact, the situation which exists in the present case is that the very invocation of the procedure, envisaged in the contract between the parties as being applicable in a case in which Section 12(5) stood waived, was itself illegal. That procedure applies only where there is waiver of the applicability of Section 12(5). Inasmuch as there was no such waiver in the present case, the procedure itself would not apply. By erroneously invoking the procedure which applies where Section 12(5) has been waived, waiver of Section 12(5) cannot be implied.”
Case Title : Indian Sugar Exim Corporation Limited Versus Sakuma Exports Limited
Case Number : O.M.P. (COMM) 416/2023 & I.A. 19782/2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 404
The Delhi High Court has recently set aside an arbitral award passed against Indian Sugar Exim Corporation Ltd., holding that damages under Section 73 of the Indian Contract Act cannot be awarded on mere guesswork in the absence of proof of actual loss. Justice Avneesh Jhingan held that “the law is well settled that for claiming damages under Section 73 of the Contract Act, actual loss or damage suffered is to be proved and only in cases where such proof is not possible, a honest genuine estimate may be made. In the case in hand, neither the actual damages were proved nor it was a case where damages/loss cannot be proved yet damages were awarded on sheer guesswork. The award of damages is vitiated being contrary to public policy and is set aside."
Madras High Court
Case Title : Sri Swarna and Co. v Chief Engineer (Construction), Southern Railways
Case Number : O.S.A.Nos.108, 109, 110 and 111 of 2020
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 108
The Madras High Court recently upheld the partial setting aside of arbitral awards in a railway contracts dispute, holding that claims granted by an arbitral tribunal contrary to express contractual prohibitions under the General Conditions of Contract (GCC) are unsustainable. The court also observed that, in the facts of the case, the contractor's issuance of a “No Claim Certificate” and the agreed GCC clauses barred it from raising further claims against the Railways.
A Division Bench of Justices P. Velmurugan and K. Govindarajan Thilakavadi dismissed appeals filed by Sri Swarna and Co. (SSC), affirming a December 10, 2019 order of a Single Judge, which had partly set aside four arbitral awards arising out of disputes relating to railway track doubling works.
Himachal Pradesh High Court
Case Title : J.K. Exim Private Limited v. Director of Women and Child Development, H.P. & Anr.
Case Number : Arbitration Appeal No. 13 of 2020
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (HP) 13
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has set aside a Single Judge's order modifying an arbitral award in a dispute over the supply of Anganwadi kits, holding that the judgment was incomprehensible and lacked clear reasoning. The court remanded the matter for fresh adjudication. The Bench of Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Justice Bipin Chander Negi emphasised the need for clarity in judicial writing.
It observed, “A judgment culminates in a conclusion. Its contents represent the basis for the conclusion. All conclusions should be supported by reasoning duly recorded. The reasons in the judgment should be intelligible and logical. The purpose of judicial writing is not to confuse or confound. The judgment must make sense to those whose lives and affairs are affected by the outcome of the case. Judgment of the High Court serve as precedents to guide future benches. This Court in the present appeal and the counsels representing the respective parties have found it difficult to navigate through the incomprehensible language in the impugned judgment.”
Chhattisgarh High Court
Case Title : Chief General Manager Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and Ors. Versus M/s Talat Construction Kharasia Naka, Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh
Case Number : ARBA No. 40 of 2018
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (CHH) 9
The Chhattisgarh High Court has recently set aside an arbitral award against Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL), holding that the arbitrator granted interest despite a clear contractual prohibition and awarded loss of profit without any supporting evidence, rendering the award legally unsustainable. Justice Bibhu Datta Guru found that the arbitrator had acted contrary to the terms agreed between the parties. The court said, “A perusal of the aforesaid clause would clearly reveal that the payment of interest on the Security Deposit was expressly barred. In spite of such a stipulation, the learned Arbitrator has proceeded to award interest in favour of the claimant, which is clearly contrary to the contractual provisions governing the parties. In the present case, the award of interest being in the teeth of the contractual bar cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside."
Dispute Does Not Become Commercial Just Because It Is An Arbitration Matter: Chhattisgarh High Court
Case Title : Anand Khedia & Ors. v. Commissioner-cum-Arbitrator & Ors.
Case Number : Arbitration Appeal No. 26 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (CHH) 11
The Chhattisgarh High Court has recently held that a dispute does not become a “commercial dispute” merely because it arises out of arbitration, setting aside the transfer of a land acquisition compensation challenge to a Commercial Court.
A Division Bench of Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal and Justice Sachin Singh Rajput observed that "A dispute will not become a commercial dispute merely because it is an arbitration matter and and jurisdiction in respect with an arbitration matter has been dealt with separately under Sections 10 and 15(2) of the Act of 2015. Every application filed under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 cannot be transferred to the Commercial Court under Section 15(2) of the Act of 2015 and only such applications will be required to be transferred, which are relating to a commercial dispute of a specified value covered under Section 2(1)(c) read with Section 2(i) of the Act of 2015."
Telangana High Court
Case Title: Ramky Elsmex Hyderabad Ring Road Limited v. Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority & Ors.
Case Number: Commercial Court Appeal No. 35 of 2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(TEL) 19
The Telangana High Court has set aside a Commercial Court order that annulled a Rs. 168.36 crore arbitral award against the Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority and others in a contract dispute with Ramky Elsmex Hyderabad Ring Road Limited.
The court held that the consensual appointment of a presiding arbitrator is not rendered invalid only because an application for such appointment was pending before the court.
Rejecting the Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority's contention that the arbitral tribunal was improperly constituted on this ground, the court held: “We are of the considered view that the respondents' argument runs contrary to the leitmotif of the A&C Act which roots for party autonomy. The essence of the respondents' argument is that the Court can force its choice of presiding arbitrator on the party overriding a consensus arrived between the parties or the arbitrators, once an application under section 11(6) is filed in Court. Such a construction is anathema to the A&C Act which gives primacy to the intention of parties at every stage of the arbitration process. There is nothing on record to suggest that the nominee arbitrators were at variance with regard to the appointment/selection of the presiding arbitrator"
75% Pre-Deposit Under MSMED Act Mandatory For Challenging Arbitral Award: Telangana High Court
Case Title : M/s Kendriya Bhandar v. Atlantis Agritech Private Limited and Ors
Case Number : Civil Revision Petition No. 503 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(TEL) 17
The Telangana High Court on 15 April 2026 held that a buyer cannot circumvent the mandatory 75% pre-deposit requirement under Section 19 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (MSME Act) to challenge an arbitral award. A Division Bench of Justices Moushumi Bhattacharya and Gadi Praveen Kumar dismissed a Civil Revision Petition filed by Kendriya Bhandar, which sought exemption from depositing 75% of the awarded amount while challenging an award passed by the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council. It held:
“Section 19 makes it clear that the deposit requirement of 75% must be paid by all other entities, except the Supplier, for any application for setting aside any Award by the Facilitation Council. Section 19 further contains an express bar on the Court from entertaining any application challenging the Award/Decree passed by the Council unless the applicant deposits 75% of the awarded amount/Decree.”
Punjab & Haryana High Court
Case Title : VCA Estate Private Limited v. Baldev Raj and others
Case Number : ARB-536-2025 (O&M)
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (PNH) 24
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that a clause allowing a civil suit for specific performance does not override a clear arbitration clause between parties, appointing an arbitrator to resolve a land dispute after rejecting objections of coercion and invalidity. Justice Jasgurpreet Singh Puri said, “When in an agreement, there exists a specific clause pertaining to arbitration, which remains undisputed then the mere fact that there is some other clause providing entitlement to file a suit for specific performance cannot oust the relevance and operation of the arbitration clause."
Case Title : Yashpreet Singh And Ors. Versus Union Of India And Another
Case Number : CR-3884-2023 (O&M) and other connected cases
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (PNH) 23
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that courts at Faridkot would have jurisdiction to entertain challenges to arbitral awards arising out of the NH-15 Amritsar–Bathinda project, and not courts at Bathinda, as the arbitral proceedings were conducted and the awards were passed at Faridkot. A coram of Justice Jasgurpreet Singh Puri observed that "Although the present cases pertain to statutory arbitration but it is an admitted fact that the arbitration has been conducted at Faridkot with the participation of all the parties and the award has been passed at Faridkot and therefore, while applying the principles of law laid down as aforestated, the venue and the seat of the arbitration is at Faridkot.” and once the seat is so determined, the courts at that place would have jurisdiction.
Calcutta High Court
Calcutta High Court Orders Enforcement of ₹1.34 Crore Arbitral Award Against L&T
Case Title: UK MECHANICAL ENGINEERING PVT LTD VERSUS LARSEN AND TOUBRO LTD
Case Number : EC-COM 311 OF 2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 97
The Calcutta High Court recently directed enforcement of an arbitral award of about Rs.1.34 crore in favour of UK Mechanical Engineering Pvt. Ltd. against Larsen & Toubro Ltd., holding that the award had attained finality and must be executed as it stands, while declining to grant any enhanced interest on the differential amount.
Justice Gaurang Kanth was dealing with an execution petition filed under Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act seeking enforcement of the arbitral award dated September 19, 2023. The dispute in execution arose over the computation of pre-award interest, which was contested by the award debtor.
“At this stage, it is apposite to note that the present analysis stands fortified by the settled principles governing the scope of execution and the finality of arbitral awards. It is well established that an executing court cannot go behind the decree or award and is bound to enforce it as it stands, without undertaking any exercise of modification, variation, or reinterpretation. This principle applies with equal force to proceedings under Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. It is equally settled that where an arbitral award is not challenged under Section 34, nor subjected to correction or interpretation under Section 33, it attains finality and becomes binding on the parties", it held.
Section 17 Security In Tribunal Domain, Courts To Interfere Only On Perversity: Calcutta High Court
Case Title : Saltee Infrastructure Limited v Shivam Industrial Parks and Estates Ltd
Case Number : APOT 259 OF 2025, GA-COM 2 OF 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 90
The Calcutta High Court on 1 April, held that courts can interfere with interim measures granted by an Arbitral Tribunal under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 only in cases of perversity or arbitrariness and affirmed that the Tribunal retains discretion to determine the quantum of security. A Bench of Justice Gaurang Kanth dismissed the appeal filed by Saltee Infrastructure Limited and upheld the Arbitrator's order dated 16 May 2025 directing furnishing of security, finding no perversity or arbitrariness in the exercise of discretion. It observed:
“The determination of the quantum of security to be furnished, in the context of an application under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, squarely falls within the domain and discretion of the Arbitral Tribunal.”
Case Title : Pho Com Net Pvt Ltd and And v. The Office of the Chief Electoral Officer
Case Number : APO/80/2025 WITH WPO/509/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 94
The Calcutta High Court has refused to interfere with a show-cause notice issued to Pho Com Net Pvt Ltd in connection with a Rs. 25.9 crore contract for providing webcasting and live monitoring services during the 2024 Lok Sabha elections, holding that the dispute raised involves contested factual issues not suited for adjudication in writ jurisdiction. Upholding a Single Judge's decision to dismiss the company's writ petition, a Division Bench of Justices Arijit Banerjee and Apurba Sinha Ray found no infirmity in the ruling, observing that the matter arose out of a contractual dispute requiring factual determination. The court said:
“We therefore do not find any infirmity in the judgment and order under appeal. The learned Single Judge has duly recorded the facts of the case and has applied the correct law in dismissing the writ petition. It is a well-considered and well-reasoned judgment which does not warrant interference.”
Case Title : Mackintosh Burn Limited vs. Damodar Valley Corporation
Case Number : AO-COM 17 of 2025 with IA No. CAN 1 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 95
The Calcutta High Court has dismissed an appeal seeking modification of the conditions of stay of an arbitral award to permit withdrawal of about Rs. 61.20 crore, holding that such orders are not appealable under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act. The court clarified that a post-award application that does not seek protection or preservation of the subject matter cannot be treated as an interim measure appealable.
Rejecting Mackintosh Burn Limited's bid to withdraw about Rs 61.20 crore deposited as security, Justice Debangsu Basak and Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi held that merely citing a particular provision does not determine the nature of the application and emphasised the distinction between Section 9, which deals with interim measures for protection and preservation, and Section 36, which governs stay of enforcement of an award.
The bench observed that, “If repeat application under Section 36 of the Act of 1996 when such application is confined to measures to be put in place under Section 36 of the Act of 1996 that is to say that, condition for grant of stay of the enforcement of the award impugned under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 then, such repeat application by no stretch of imagination can be classified to be one under Section 9 of the Act of 1996, sans any other details. In absence of relief being sought by an applicant for protection and preservation of the subject matter of the disputes referred to in arbitration, post the award, an application simplicitor touching on the modalities for grant of stay of enforcement of the arbitral award, cannot be treated to be an application under Section 9 of the Act of 1996.”
Calcutta High Court Restores Arbitral Award In Bhubaneswar Airport Terminal Construction Dispute
Case Title : M/s NBCC India Limited Vs. M/s J.G. Engineers Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : AO-COM 13 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 96
The Calcutta High Court on Thursday set aside a Single Judge's order that had interfered with an arbitral award in a dispute over construction of a terminal and allied buildings at Bhubaneswar Airport. The court held that the court exercising jurisdiction under Section 34 cannot substitute the arbitrator's plausible view with its own. A Division Bench of Justices Debangsu Basak and Md. Shabbar Rashidi was hearing appeals filed by NBCC India Limited against the July 1, 2024 order by which the Single Judge had allowed the contractor's challenge, set aside the counterclaims awarded to NBCC, and dismissed NBCC's own challenge to the arbitral award.
Setting aside that order, the Bench held that the Single Judge had exceeded the limited scope of interference under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. It said the arbitral award was based on evidence and reflected a possible view, which could not have been disturbed.
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Madhya Pradesh High Court Holds ICA Award Void, Says Only CJI Can Appoint Arbitrator
Case Title : Ssangyong Engineering and Construction Company Ltd v. M/s S.B. Engineering Associates
Case Number : Arbitration Appeal No. 14 of 2023 & 25 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (MP) 26
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that an arbitral award against Ssangyong Engineering and Construction Company Ltd is a nullity in law, as the dispute was an international commercial arbitration and, under Sections 11(9) and 11(12) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, only the Chief Justice of India or a person or institution designated by him could appoint the arbitrator. The court noted that Ssangyong is a company incorporated in the Republic of Korea, and therefore the arbitration between the parties falls within the definition of an international commercial arbitration under Section 2(1)(f). In such a case, it held, the jurisdiction to appoint an arbitrator lies exclusively with the Chief Justice of India. The appointment made by the High Court was thus without jurisdiction.
Chief Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Vinay Saraf observed, “Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act does not empower the person designated by the Chief Justice of High Court to appoint an arbitrator in International Commercial Arbitration but only empowers the Chief Justice of India. The provisions are mandatory in nature and cannot be waived.”
MP High Court Sets Aside Arbitral Award In Insulator Supply Dispute For Patent Illegality
Case Title : Madhya Pradesh Power Transmission Company Limited v VK Udyog Ltd.
Case Number : Arbitration Appeal No. 15 and 16 Of 2024
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (MP) 28
Setting aside an arbitral award in a dispute over the supply of disc insulators for transmission lines, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has found that the award was vitiated by patent illegality, noting that the arbitrator overlooked key provisions of the Contract Act and returned findings that did not align with the contractual record.
The Bench of Justices Vivek Rusia and Pradeep Mittal said the November 16, 2018 award was marked by fundamental errors. It pointed out that the arbitrator had wrongly applied Sections 20, 62, 73 and 74 of the Contract Act and failed to properly engage with crucial aspects of the agreement between the parties.
The court held:
“The award is set aside on the ground of patent illegality, inasmuch as the learned Arbitrator has: (i) failed to consider the Appellant's objections founded on Sections 20, 73 and 74 of the Contract Act; (ii) misapplied Section 62 of the Contract Act by treating a bilateral contractual amendment, validly entered into between the parties, as a nullity; and (iii) rendered a finding on rejection of goods that is contrary to the documentary record and the terms of the contract. Each of these infirmities independently constitutes patent illegality within the meaning of Section 34(2A) of the Act, 1996, warranting interference”
Case Title : SS Associates v Dilip Buildcon
Case Number : Arbitration Case No. 141 Of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (MP) 25
The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently reiterated that parallel criminal proceedings between private parties do not bar arbitration unless the allegations have a public character and proceeded to appoint an arbitrator in a dispute arising out of purchase orders between the parties.
A single bench of Justice Vivek Jain emphasised, observing, “Be that as it may be, but it is settled in law that even where criminal proceedings are pending parallelly, then also arbitration proceedings can continue unless the criminal allegation is of such a nature that it amounts to an allegation in rem, but where the criminal action or criminality alleged by one party against the other party is criminality alleged in personam then the arbitration proceedings cannot be scuttled."
Kerala High Court
Case Title : Cherutty Muhammed and Ors v. Sevens Football Association
Case Number : FAO No. 28 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(KER) 70
The Kerala High Court has held that the arbitration clause in the bylaws of the Sevens Football Association does not bar a civil suit in disputes among its members or office bearers, as the clause is limited to disputes between the association's units. A coram of Justice S. Manu made the observation while dismissing an appeal challenging an interim injunction granted by the Additional District Court, Thrissur in a dispute over the use of the name “Sevens Football Association”, its abbreviation “SFA” and logo.
“The arbitration clause in the bylaw speaks about resolution of disputes between various units of the Association by resorting to the procedure under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The arbitration clause is therefore intended only for resolution of disputes between various units and hence in the case of disputes between members of the Association or among its office bearers, arbitration cannot be invoked", the Bench held.
Bombay High Court
Statutory Bar On Arbitrability Can Be Examined While Granting Interim Relief: Bombay High Court
Case Title : Airports Authority Of India Versus Satyavan Vishnu Agate, Sole Proprietor Of M/S Vision Enterprises
Case Number : : Review Petition (L) No. 18565 Of 2025 In Commercial Arbitration Petition No. 219 Of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 215
The Bombay High Court on 16 April held that courts can examine arbitrability, including statutory bars, while deciding petitions under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, especially where no Arbitral Tribunal exists. Section 9 allows a Court to grant interim protection measures before, during, or after arbitral proceedings to safeguard the subject matter of the dispute. A Bench of Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan allowed the review petitions filed by the Airports Authority of India (AAI) and restored the Section 9 petitions for fresh adjudication, noting that it had withdrawn its earlier consent to arbitration on the ground that it violated the Airports Authority of India Act, 1994. He held:
“However, where there is a statutory bar, the question that would arise is whether the parties can at all agree to proceed to arbitration. This would be a neat question of jurisdiction. The question of jurisdiction would ordinarily lie before the Arbitral Tribunal but in Section 9 proceedings, the question of jurisdiction would be considered by the Section 9 Court.”
Stockbroker Cannot 'Wriggle Out' Of Liability For Agent's Unauthorized Acts: Bombay High Court
Case Title : IIFL Capital Services Limited v. Sukhadeo Gorakha Bhil
Case Number : Arbitration Appeal No. 128 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 225
The Bombay High Court on 21 April, held that a stockbroker remains liable for unauthorised and fraudulent trades executed by its sub-brokers and agents, particularly where such acts arise in the course of agency and result in abnormal brokerage gains at the client's expense. Justice Arun R. Pedneker upheld the arbitral award directing IIFL Capital Services Limited to pay Rs. 14.37 lakh to investor Sukhadeo Gorakha Bhil and dismissed the appeal filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. He observed:
“The stock broker cannot wriggle out of the Alliance Partners actions, which are in the course of his agency, although the Broker / Appellant may have not permitted the Alliance Partner to indulge into fraudulent trades. The actions of the Alliance Partner has resulted in the profits to Stock Broker and the Broker is liable for the act of Alliance Partner and his servants.”
Allahabad High Court
Arbitral Award Executable Against SPV Members Not Party To Proceedings: Allahabad High Court
Case Title : M/S U.P. Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam, Ltd. Thru. Authorised Representative Pradeep Soni And Others v. M/S Adani Enterprises Ltd., Ahemdabad Thru. Managing Director Ahemdabad And Another
Case Number : MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. 6089 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (ALL) 34
The Allahabad High Court on 9 April held that members of a special purpose vehicle (SPV) fall within the expression “persons claiming under them” under Section 35 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and allowed arbitral awards to be executed against them even if they were not parties to the arbitration proceedings. Justice Pankaj Bhatia delivered the ruling while dismissing petitions challenging execution proceedings initiated by Adani Enterprises Ltd. against shareholders of an SPV that had contracted with Adani. He held:
“a normal decree passed by a competent Court of law against a company can be executed only against the judgment debtor company and not against its shareholders/directors unless ingredients of lifting the corporate veil is established, however, an award passed under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act can be executed against the 'party' or any 'person claiming under them.”
Tripura High Court
Reconstructed Record Gaps No Ground To Set Aside Award: Tripura High Court
Case Title : Debashish Das v State of Tripura
Case Number : Commercial Appeal No.03 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (TRI) 2
The Tripura High Court on 1 April, held that a Court hearing a challenge to an arbitral award cannot rely on gaps in a reconstructed record to question the Arbitrator's findings or the existence of material that was before the Arbitrator at the time of adjudication. A Bench comprising Chief Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao and Justice Bishawajit Palit set aside the Commercial Court's order, and upheld the arbitral award. They held:
“...merely because they were not found in the reconstructed record, the award of the Arbitrator cannot be interfered with by the Commercial Court because such loss of original record cannot be put by the respondents as a point in their favour to doubt the Arbitrator's integrity and question the very existence of such material at all. Such material has to be believed to exist and also to have been considered by the Arbitrator, though it might have got lost subsequently.”
Rajasthan High Court
Case Title : Rajasthan Chess Association v. Ashok Kumar Bhargava & Ors.
Case Number : D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 288/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (RAJ) 14
The Rajasthan High Court has recently held that disputes touching the constitution, management, or election of a sports association are required to be resolved through the statutory mechanism of conciliation and arbitration under the Rajasthan Sports (Registration, Recognition and Regulation of Association) Act, 2005, and not by invoking the writ jurisdiction of the court. A Division Bench of Justice Inderjeet Singh and Justice Ashok Kumar Jain allowed a special appeal filed by the Rajasthan Chess Association and set aside a Single Judge's order, which had stayed the effect of elections held on March 4, 2026, and directed the appointment of an administrator to manage the association.
Referring to this, the bench said, “Admittedly, the association is governed by the "Act of 2005". The "Act of 2005" was enacted to provide registration, recognition, and regulation of sports associations and to facilitate and regulate the activities of the sports associations in the State of Rajasthan."
It went on to underline the role of arbitration within that framework, observing, “The Arbitration and Conciliation Act itself provides a legal framework for efficacious dispute resolution through the arbitration mechanism. While enacting the "Act of 2005" the Legislature kept this object in its mind and enacted provision for resolution through arbitration mechanism. In normal circumstances, a writ jurisdiction is not exerciseable in matter of arbitration."