Nominal Index
Elecon Engineering Company Limited versus Bhartiya Rail Bijlee Company Limited & Anr., 2026 LLBiz SC 181
Parveen Kapoor & Ors. and Omaxe Limited, 2026 LLBiz HC (Del) 459
Spicejet Limited vs Kal Airways Pvt Ltd & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC (Del) 458
Campos Brothers Farms v. Matru Bhumi Supply Chain Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC (Del) 465
MBL Infrastructure Ltd v. M/s Pradeep Colonisers and Suppliers Pvt Ltd, 2026 LLBiz HC (Del) 468
Matsya Fincap Pvt Ltd versus Govind Lal, 2026 LLBiz HC (Del) 466
Sunder Lal Gupta v. M/s Sahyog Hospitality & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC (Del) 455
Radiance Infracon and Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. GLS Infratech Pvt. Ltd., 2026 LLBiz HC (Del) 472
Jaksons Developers (P) Ltd versus Delhi Development Authority, 2026 LLBiz HC (Del) 467
The Atlas Electric Industries Pvt Ltd v. M/s Polotrips India (P) Ltd & Anr., 2026 LLBiz HC (Del) 473
D S Textiles versus IIFL Finance Limited, 2026 LLBiz HC (Bom) 265
Nayara Energy Ltd. v. M/s Mahendra Sales Services, 2026 LLBiz HC (Bom) 268
Hitesh Coal Traders v. Indapur Dairy & Milk Products Ltd., 2026 LLBiz HC (Bom) 262
Tukaram Kana Pawara (Deceased) thr. Legal Heirs v. The Project Director Project Implementation Unit, 2026 LLBiz HC (Bom) 288
Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited vs. Larsen & Toubro Limited, 2026 LLBiz HC (Bom) 278
Aditya Birla Housing Finance Limited v. Axis Bank Limited & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC (Bom) 272
Generic Engineering Construction and Projects Ltd. versus Maharashtra Maritime Board, 2026 LLBiz HC (Bom) 256
Supama Realtors LLP and Others v. Mulchand Kaluchand Ranka and Others, 2026 LLBiz HC (Bom) 287
Prashant Vasant Koregaonkar & Ors. versus Competent Authority, 2026 LLBiz HC (Bom) 286
M/s Electronica Finance Limited vs Quality Offset Printers & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC (Cal) 101
West Bengal Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. versus Tata Motors Limited, 2026 LLBiz HC (Cal) 104
West Bengal Mineral Development and Trading Corporation Ltd. vs Trans Damodar Coal Mining Pvt. Ltd., 2026 LLBiz HC (Cal) 110
ITD-ITD CEM Joint Venture versus Kolkata Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., 2026 LLBiz HC (Cal) 107
MIPL DRAIPL JV versus Eastern Railway, 2026 LLBiz HC (Cal) 102
Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. v. Deep Industries Ltd. & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC (APH) 37
M/s Srasti Liquor Bottling LLP & Ors. v. Mrs. Sita Rajesh Varma, 2026 LLBiz HC (Raj) 16
MPM Homes Developers Ltd through its Partner Smt. Annapurna Maheshwari and Others versus M/s Amarjot Developers and Finance Pvt. Ltd through Authorized Signatory Vivek Chugh, 2026 LLBiz HC (MP) 32
Northern Coal Field Ltd. versus M/s Suresh Construction Co., 2026 LLBiz HC (MP) 33
Pinaka Infomatics Private Limited v. Karnataka State Electronics Development Corporation Limited, 2026 LLBiz HC (Kar) 64
P. Nagaraju vs The Special Land Acquisition Officer & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC (Kar) 65
AVTEC Limited v. PDS Logistics International Private Limited, 2026 LLBiz HC (Kar) 61
K. Punniyamoorthy & Anr. v. M/s Escape Artists Motion Pictures & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC (Mad) 125
The Federation of Motor Sports Clubs of India v. Blue Band Sports Private Limited & Anr., 2026 LLBiz HC (Mad) 126
Waterbury Farrel v. Steel Authority of India Limited & Anr., 2026 LLBiz HC (Mad) 123
Ennore Tank Terminals Private Limited v. Kamarajar Port Limited, 2026 LLBiz HC (Mad) 127
Laxmi Kant Pandey v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., 2026 LLBiz HC (All) 37
The Learning Curve Educational Trust v. The Indian Institute of Technology, 2026 LLBiz HC (HP) 14
Supreme Court
Case Title : Elecon Engineering Company Limited Versus Bhartiya Rail Bijlee Company Limited & Anr.
Case Number: Special Leave Petition (C) No.33128 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz SC 181
The Supreme Court has held that a collaborator whose technical expertise was essential for a contractor to qualify for a project bid can invoke the arbitration clause in the principal contract.This would apply where the collaborator's role makes it effectively a party to the agreement.
“The meetings convened between the Employer, the Contractor and the Collaborator, after delay in execution of the contract, the tripartite agreement entered into between them and the further communications addressed to the collaborator to take up his responsibility as per the DJU makes the Collaborator a veritable party to the contract who is also entitled to invoke the arbitration clause as available in the contract between the Contractor and the Employer in which the DJU executed by the Collaborator and the Contractor, in favour of the Employer is an inextricable part.”, it held.
Delhi High Court
Case Title: Parveen Kapoor & Ors. and Omaxe Limited
Case Number: FAO (OS) (COMM) 50/2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 459
The Delhi High Court has upheld an order setting aside an arbitral award that granted buyers of a commercial unit about ₹1.05 lakh per month as assured returns from Omaxe Limited, after finding that the arbitrator had granted relief on a claim that was no longer part of the arbitration.
Explaining why, a Division Bench of Justices V. Kameswar Rao and Vinod Kumar held that the arbitrator “erred in awarding the AMR as compensation as it was beyond his jurisdiction,” noting that once the claim was withdrawn, “it goes out of the hands of the Arbitrator” and cannot be reintroduced in arbitral proceedings.
Case Title : SPICEJET LIMITED vs KAL AIRWAYS PVT LTD & ORS
Case Number : O.M.P. (COMM) 42/2019
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 458
The Delhi High Court on Monday dismissed review petitions filed by SpiceJet Ltd and its promoter Ajay Singh, refusing to modify its March 18, 2026 order and grant further time, thereby requiring compliance with directions to deposit ₹144.51 crore in an arbitration dispute with Kal Airways Pvt. Ltd.
Justice Subramonium Prasad held that subsequent developments such as the outbreak of hostilities in West Asia cannot be used to avoid compliance with binding judicial directions or as a ground for review.
“The hostilities which broke out in February-March, 2026 cannot be used to the advantage of the Review Petitioners and at the cost of repetition, it is made clear that this Court was not prepared to accept the offer given by the Review Petitioners for deposit of the title deeds of the Spicejet‟s Property in lieu of the arbitral amount as in the opinion of this Court, the said offer could not be a proper compliance of the Orders of the Apex Court.”
Unenforceable Foreign Arbitral Award Does Not Extinguish Original Cause Of Action: Delhi High Court
Case Title : Campos Brothers Farms v. Matru Bhumi Supply Chain Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Case Number : RFA(OS)(COMM) 3/2025'
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 465
The Delhi High Court has reiterated that a foreign arbitral award that has been found unenforceable in India does not extinguish the original civil claim between parties, while restoring a recovery suit filed by a U.S.-based almond supplier.
A Division Bench of Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Amit Mahajan held, “the cause of action for recovery of the amount claimed does not cease to exist merely because a foreign arbitral award has been passed, particularly when such award has been held to be unenforceable in India. An unenforceable foreign award cannot, by itself, extinguish the underlying civil cause of action, as such award has failed to secure recovery of the amount in favour of the claimant"
Case Title: MBL Infrastructure Ltd v. M/s Pradeep Colonisers and Suppliers Pvt Ltd
Case Number: O.M.P. (COMM) 469/2025 & connected matters
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 468
The Delhi High Court has held that claims that are not part of an approved insolvency resolution plan cannot later be revived through arbitration.
Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar observed:
“Once the corporate insolvency resolution process attains finality within the statutory framework contemplated under the IBC, the claims of all stakeholders stand crystallized and are thereafter governed exclusively by the terms of the Resolution Plan. Such claims cannot be revived, re-agitated, or pursued through proceedings outside the insolvency mechanism. The contrary view adopted by the learned Arbitral Tribunal, which permits the resurrection of such claims in arbitral proceedings, runs counter to the legislative intent and the settled legal position, and is therefore liable to be set aside."
Arbitration Clause Signed By Only One Party Invalid, Award Unenforceable: Delhi High Court
Case Title : Matsya Fincap Pvt Ltd Versus Govind Lal
Case Number: EFA(COMM) 8/2024
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 466
The Delhi High Court on 5 May held that an arbitration clause contained in a document signed by only one party does not constitute a valid arbitration agreement under Section 7 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, in the absence of material demonstrating mutual consent to arbitrate.
A Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Amit Mahajan further held that an arbitral award founded on such a defective agreement is a nullity and incapable of execution and upheld the Executing Court's order refusing enforcement of the award. It held:
“It is not in dispute that the said acknowledgment letter bears the signature of the Respondent but does not bear the signature of the Appellant. Therefore, it does not satisfy the requirement of a 'document signed by the parties' under Section 7(4)(a) of the A&C Act.”
Case Title : Sunder Lal Gupta v. M/s Sahyog Hospitality & Ors.
Case Number: OMP (ENF.) (COMM.) 284/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 455
The Delhi High Court has held that interim orders passed by an arbitral tribunal cannot be independently enforced in cases where they stand subsumed into a final arbitral award covering the same subject matter, holding that such directions must thereafter be enforced only under the statutory framework governing arbitral awards.
Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar dismissed an enforcement petition filed by Sunder Lal Gupta, ruling that the interim direction requiring Sahyog Hospitality to deposit 81.25% of monthly mesne profits could not be executed once it stood merged into the final award.
“Where the directions contained in an interim order are effectively subsumed into the operative part of the Final Award, the enforcement of such directions must thereafter be governed by the regime applicable to the enforcement of arbitral awards. Consequently, the provisions of Sections 34(3) and 36(1) of the A&C Act must be allowed to operate in their full play, without being circumvented through parallel enforcement proceedings under Section 17(2) of the A&C Act," the bench observed.
Arbitrator Cannot “Conjure” Mesne Profit Figure Solely On “Guesswork”: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Radiance Infracon and Developers Pvt. Ltd. v GLS Infratech Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : FAO(OS) (COMM) 156/2024, CM APPL. 43047/2024
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 472
The Delhi High Court on 13 April held that an arbitral tribunal cannot award mesne profits solely on “guesswork” without any foundational material or reasoning supporting the quantification and clarified that while exact proof of unliquidated damages is not necessary, the award must disclose a rational basis linking the material on record to the amount awarded.
A Division Bench of Justices Om Prakash Shukla and C. Hari Shankar upheld an order setting aside the arbitral award to the extent it granted mesne profits to Radiance Infracon and Developers Pvt. Ltd. against GLS Infratech Pvt. Ltd. and dismissed the appeal filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. It observed:
“While exactitude in proof of damages is not insisted upon, the adjudicatory process must nevertheless disclose a rational nexus between the material available and figure ultimately awarded or atleast some line of reasoning in mind of the learned Arbitrator to justify the reasonability of the figure.”
Delhi High Court Partly Sets Aside Award Denying FDR Interest Despite Invalid PBG Invocation
Case Title: Jaksons Developers (P) Ltd Versus Delhi Development Authority
Case Number: O.M.P. (COMM) 349/2023
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 467
The Delhi High Court has held that the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) cannot retain interest accrued on a fixed deposit created from a Performance Bank Guarantee (PBG) amount after an arbitral tribunal held that DDA was not entitled to invoke the PBG.
The PBG had been furnished by Jaksons Developers in connection with allotment of a commercial plot by DDA for construction of a hotel project for the 2010 Commonwealth Games.
Justice Avneesh Jhingan said:
“The realised amount along with interest accrued on FDR was subject to outcome of the arbitration proceedings.”
The court observed that the arbitrator, after holding that DDA could not have invoked or encashed the PBG, had no basis to segregate the principal amount from the interest accrued on the FDR.
Case Title : The Atlas Electric Industries Pvt Ltd v. M/s Polotrips India (P) Ltd & Anr.
Case Number: ARB.P. 1742/2025 with O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 271/2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 473
The Delhi High Court on 4 May held that a party described only as a “Confirming Party” or merely having signatory status in an agreement cannot invoke the arbitration clause unless the contract expressly grants such a right.
Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar dismissed petitions filed by The Atlas Electric Industries Pvt. Ltd. seeking interim protection and appointment of an arbitrator in a dispute concerning an industrial plot in Haryana. He held:
“The arbitration clause, in express terms, does not include the Confirming Party within the category of parties entitled to invoke arbitral proceedings. Once the explicit stipulations of the Agreement do not contemplate or confer such a right upon the Confirming Party, it cannot, by way of imputation or implication, be contended that a mere signatory status to the Agreement would, in and of itself, suffice to vest the Confirming Party with the entitlement to invoke the arbitration clause.”
Bombay High Court
Case Title: D S Textiles Versus IIFL Finance Limited
Case Number: ARBITRATION PETITION (L) NO. 12097 OF 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 265
Recently, the Bombay High Court came down heavily on banks and non-banking finance companies for attempting to legitimise unilateral arbitrator appointments through institution-backed and algorithm-based selection mechanisms, holding that such practices are manipulative devices to circumvent Supreme Court rulings on arbitrator independence and neutrality.
Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan set aside arbitral orders passed in proceedings initiated by IIFL Finance and issued directions for compliance with Supreme Court law on arbitrator neutrality. He observed:
“...the attempt by finance companies and banks to pretend to have cleansed the arbitrator-appointment process by getting an “institution” of their choice to make a purportedly “independent” appointment is wholly untenable and completely illegal, and indeed a colourable and manipulative device to circumvent the law declared by the Supreme Court.”
Case Title : Nayara Energy Ltd. v. M/s Mahendra Sales Services
Case Number : Commercial Arbitration Petition No. 691 of 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 268
The Bombay High Court has held that arbitral tribunals cannot import principles of fairness and natural justice into commercial contracts contrary to their express terms.
The court made the observation while setting aside an arbitral award passed against Nayara Energy Ltd. that had directed restoration of a petrol pump dealership in Barmer and payment of ₹4 lakh compensation to the franchisee.
The court held that the tribunal acted contrary to Sections 28(2) and 28(3) of the Arbitration Act by quashing the termination despite Clause 19 of the franchise agreement permitting termination for breach. It further held that the tribunal erred in restoring a determinable contract despite Section 14(1)(c) of the Specific Relief Act barring specific enforcement of such contracts.
Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh held that "As the notion of fairness and equity cannot be read into contract dehors the terms of the commercial contract, the findings of the Learned Arbitrator for quashing and setting aside the termination is contrary to the substantive law and hence, stands vitiated."
Case Title: Hitesh Coal Traders v. Indapur Dairy & Milk Products Ltd.
Case Number : Commercial Arbitration Application No. 93 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 262
The Bombay High Court on 5 May held that an arbitration agreement can be inferred even in the absence of an express arbitration clause in the original purchase orders, where subsequent contractual documents and the conduct of the parties indicate a clear intention to arbitrate.
Justice Sandeep V. Marne allowed a Section 11 application by Hitesh Coal Traders and appointed Advocate Suyash Gadre as the sole arbitrator to adjudicate disputes with Indapur Dairy & Milk Products Ltd. arising from alleged unpaid dues of Rs 19,73,409 in coal supply transactions. He observed:
“mere absence of arbitration clause in Purchase Orders cannot be a reason for inferring that parties did not intend to resolve disputes through arbitration. By acknowledging the Delivery Challans and Tax Invoices and by making payments against the invoices containing arbitration clause the Respondent has agreed for resolution of disputes through the mechanism of arbitration. The intention of parties to arbitrate can thus easily be gathered in the facts of the present case."
No TDS Payable On National Highways' Land Acquisition Arbitral Awards: Bombay High Court
Case Title : Tukaram Kana Pawara (Deceased) Thr. Legal Heirs v. The Project Director Project Implementation Unit
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 914 of 2026 and connected matters
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 288
The Bombay High Court has held that deducting TDS from compensation awarded under arbitral awards in National Highways acquisition cases is impermissible, holding that forcing land losers to seek tax refunds would defeat the purpose of the land acquisition law's tax exemption.
Referring to Section 96 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, the Court observed,
"Any interpretation which requires deduction of tax at source and thereafter compels land losers to seek refund from the Income Tax Department would defeat the very purpose of the legislation. Such an approach, which forces farmers and land losers to move from one authority to another, is clearly contrary to the objects and reasons of the 2013 Act."
Justice Arun R. Pedneker passed the ruling while allowing a batch of writ petitions challenging District Court orders that permitted withdrawal of compensation amounts deposited pursuant to arbitral awards, subject to deduction of 10% towards TDS and transfer of the deducted amount to the Competent Authority for Land Acquisition (CALA).
Mumbai High Project Dispute: Bombay High Court Orders L&T To Keep ₹150 Crore Bank Guarantee Alive
Case Title: Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited vs. Larsen & Toubro Limited
Case Number: CARBP(L) 15345 OF 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 278
The Bombay High Court has directed Larsen & Toubro Ltd. to continue renewing and keeping alive bank guarantees worth approximately ₹150.34 crore furnished to ONGC Ltd. in a dispute over liquidated damages arising from the Mumbai High North redevelopment project.
The court held that ONGC, though largely unsuccessful in the arbitration after the tribunal awarded higher claims to L&T, could still seek interim protection under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act in a rare and compelling case.
It ordered the guarantee to remain alive until the final disposal of ONGC's challenge to the arbitral award under Section 34.
Justice Sandeep V. Marne observed, “Refusal of interim measures would result in a manifest disproportion as the Petitioner would lose the security worth 10% of the contract price while Respondent's only burden is the continued existence of the bank guarantee.”
Financial Institution Need Not Be Secured Creditor To Invoke SARFAESI Arbitration: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Aditya Birla Housing Finance Limited v. Axis Bank Limited & Ors.
Case Number: Commercial Arbitration Application No. 95 of 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 272
The Bombay High Court has held that a financial institution need not already be a secured creditor to invoke statutory arbitration under the SARFAESI Act, while referring a loan takeover dispute between Aditya Birla Housing Finance Ltd. and Axis Bank to arbitration.
Justice Sandeep V. Marne held that Section 11 of the SARFAESI Act does not require a bank or financial institution invoking arbitration to already be a secured creditor.
The court observed, “Section 11 of the SARFAESI Act by itself does not use the expression 'secured creditor'. Therefore plain language of Section 11 does not require that the bank or financial institution must also possess the status that of a secured creditor.”
Conflicting Contractual Clauses Do Not Override A Clear Arbitration Agreement: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Generic Engineering Construction and Projects Ltd. VERSUS Maharashtra Maritime Board
Case Number : COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 1070 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 256
The Bombay High Court has held that when contractual clauses appear inconsistent or conflict with a clear arbitration clause, courts must lean in favour of arbitration, emphasising that such an approach is necessary to avoid frustrating valid arbitration agreements.
A bench of Justice Sandeep V. Marne made the observation while appointing a sole arbitrator in a dispute between Generic Engineering Construction Projects Ltd and the Maharashtra Maritime Board arising from termination of a construction contract, holding that the parties had clearly agreed to arbitrate even disputes relating to termination.
“In a case where few other clauses in the contract may be slightly inconsistent or may be in conflict with the main arbitration clause, the Courts will have to rule in favour of the arbitration rather than giving weightage to those confusing or conflicting clauses. Once there is clear agreement to arbitrate, the Courts would tend to ignore other clauses of contract which may create confusion about existence of arbitration agreement. After all arbitration is aimed at declogging the overburdened Courts and therefore Courts need to necessarily rule in favour of arbitration rather than concentrating on other inconsistent clauses for holding that specific arbitration clause present in the contract would get nullified by those clauses.”
Nine Years Of Silence In Arbitration Equals Abandonment Under Section 32(2)(c): Bombay High Court
Case Title : Supama Realtors LLP and Others v. Mulchand Kaluchand Ranka and Others
Case Number : Commercial Arbitration Application No. 242 of 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 287
The Bombay High Court on 8 May held that prolonged inactivity in arbitral proceedings, coupled with absence of any steps for nearly nine years, amounted to implied abandonment, resulting in termination of proceedings under Section 32(2)(c) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Justice Sandeep V. Marne dismissed the plea seeking appointment of a substitute arbitrator, holding that the arbitral proceedings stood terminated and could not be revived. He observed:
“It is incomprehensible that settlement talks can go on for 9 long years. It is not that the Applicants were writing to the learned arbitrator about progress of the settlement talks or have even kept the arbitrator informed about settlement talks happening.”
Bombay High Court Holds Denial Of 30% Solatium Is Computational Error In NH Land Acquisition Cases
Case Title : Prashant Vasant Koregaonkar & Ors Versus Competent Authority
Case Number: ARBITRATION APPEAL NO. 70 OF 2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 286
The Bombay High Court recently held that denial of 30% solatium in arbitral awards arising from compulsory land acquisition for National Highways projects constitutes a computational error, which can be corrected under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, without undertaking a merits review.
Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan allowed a batch of appeals filed by landowners, including Prashant Vasant Koregaonkar and others, challenging arbitral awards in proceedings under the National Highways Act, 1956. It directed payment of 30% solatium to the claimants and modified the impugned awards accordingly.
“The law declared by the Supreme Court renders the computation of the solatium as imperative. Such computation is merely computation of 30% of the value of the compensation. The error in the Arbitral Award is clearly a computational error. Correcting this error would not undermine or impact any other component of the Arbitral Award. Therefore, the mere computation of the 30% amount payable on the compensation awarded for the land acquisition in question, in my opinion, in the facts of this case, falls within the ambit of a computational error.”
Calcutta High Court
Case Title : M/s Electronica Finance Limited vs Quality Offset Printers & Ors.
Case Number : A.P. COM No. 610 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 101
The Calcutta High Court has held, in the facts of a loan dispute, that borrowers who failed to object to the choice of arbitration venue despite notice and participated in earlier proceedings before Kolkata courts could not later challenge jurisdiction, as their conduct amounted to consent.
A Single Bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar allowed an application filed by Electronica Finance Limited and appointed advocate Deepan Kumar Sarkar as the sole arbitrator to adjudicate disputes with Quality Offset Printers and others.
“The submissions of the learned Advocate for the respondents as recorded by Their Lordships, do not indicate that any question of jurisdiction was raised in the appeal, which means that the respondents did not have any objection with regard to the choice of venue of the arbitration being Kolkata and jurisdiction of the courts at Kolkata over the subject matter of the dispute. The notice invoking arbitration clearly mentioned in paragraphs 6, 7 and 8 that the lender had chosen Kolkata as the venue of the arbitral proceedings and the courts at Kolkata to have jurisdiction over the said agreement,” the Court noted, before adding:
“In the factual matrix of this case, consent of the respondents to anchor the arbitral proceeding at Kolkata is available from the conduct.”
Calcutta High Court Temporarily Stays Arbitral Award In Tata Nano Singur Land Acquisition Dispute
Case Title : WEST BENGAL INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. VERSUS TATA MOTORS LIMITED
Case Number : AP-COM/88/2024
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 104
The Calcutta High Court on Thursday (May 7) temporarily stayed for eight weeks the enforcement of a ₹765.78 crore arbitral award passed in favour of Tata Motors Ltd against the West Bengal Industrial Development Corporation Ltd (WBIDC) in the dispute over the acquisition of land in Singur for Tata's Nano factory.
An arbitral tribunal had, on October 30, 2023 directed WBIDC to pay Tata Motors ₹765.78 crore with interest at 11% per annum.
Justice Aniruddha Roy granted an unconditional interim stay on operation and enforcement of the award. The Court clarified that the stay would automatically stand vacated after eight weeks if WBIDC failed to either furnish an undertaking securing the award amount or deposit the directed cash security.
“There shall be an unconditional stay of the impugned award till eight weeks from date. Thereafter, if the undertaking is not filed before the Registrar, Original Side or the cash security is not deposited as the case may be, as directed herein, within the said period of eight weeks, the stay will automatically be vacated.”, it held.
Calcutta High Court Upholds ₹151 Crore Arbitral Award On Restitution In Coal Block Dispute
Case Title : WEST BENGAL MINERAL DEVELOPMENT AND TRADING CORPORATION LTD. VS TRANS DAMODAR COAL MINING PVT. LTD.
Case Number : AP-COM/172/2024
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 110
The Calcutta High Court on 5 May upheld major portions of an arbitral award of about Rs. 151 crore in favour of Trans Damodar Coal Mining Pvt Ltd in a dispute arising from cancellation of coal block allocation after the Supreme Court's 2014 judgments.
Justice Shampa Sarkar held that even though the mining contract became void after the Supreme Court struck down coal block allocations in 2014, the arbitral tribunal could still grant limited restitutionary relief under the Contract Act and the Coal Mines (Special Provisions) Act, 2015 to prevent unjust enrichment between the parties. She held:
“The Arbitrator rightly held that, if the contract was void, any party who may have taken advantage under such a void contract, should refund the advantage or compensate to the person from whom such advantage was received, under the provision of Contract Act. The decision of the learned Arbitrator was made on the principle of equity, that no one should unjustly enrich himself at another's expense. The principle of restitution would not be applicable if the agreement was void ab initio, and the parties knowingly entered into the illegal or void contract.”
Kolkata East-West Metro: Calcutta High Court Upholds Arbitral Award In Favour Of KMRC
Case Title : ITD-ITD CEM JOINT VENTURE VERSUS KOLKATA METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD.
Case Number: AP-COM 181 OF 2024
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 107
The Calcutta High Court on Friday dismissed a challenge filed by ITD-ITD CEM Joint Venture against an arbitral award arising from the Kolkata East-West Metro Railway Project. It upheld the award in favour of Kolkata Metro Rail Corporation Ltd (KMRC).
Justice Gaurang Kanth rejected the contractor's petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The challenge was to portions of an arbitral award dated November 21, 2019.
The Court held that the arbitral tribunal's findings neither ignored the contract nor traveled beyond its terms. It said the tribunal had taken a plausible and reasoned view based on the contract and the evidence.
“The decisions relied upon by the Petitioner pertain to cases where the arbitral award was found to be in disregard of the contractual framework or vitiated by manifest illegality. In the present case, the findings of the Tribunal neither ignore the contract nor traverse beyond its terms; rather, they represent a plausible and reasoned view based on interpretation of the contract and appreciation of evidence. In the absence of any demonstrable perversity, patent illegality, or violation of public policy, the scope of interference under Section 34 remains limited, and the reliance placed on the aforesaid judgments is, therefore, misplaced.” the Court held.
Mere Delay Or Inaction Does Not Amount To Abandonment Of Arbitration: Calcutta High Court
Case Title: MIPL DRAIPL JV VERSUS EASTERN RAILWAY
Case Number : AP-COM 1007 OF 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 102
The Calcutta High Court has held that mere delay or inaction cannot, by itself, lead to an inference of abandonment of arbitration, emphasising that there must be a clear and conscious intention to relinquish the arbitral remedy.
Justice Gaurang Kanth allowed a petition by MIPL DRAIPL JV in a dispute with Eastern Railway and appointed a substitute arbitrator after terminating the earlier arbitrator's mandate.
“In law, abandonment cannot be readily inferred from mere inaction or delay. It must be established that there was a clear, unequivocal, and conscious intention on the part of the party to relinquish the arbitral remedy. The test is not merely of lapse of time, but of intention as discernible from the conduct of the party.”
Andhra Pradesh High Court
ONGC Cannot Seek Re-Deposit Of ₹42.89 Crore Withdrawn With Its “No Objection”: AP High Court
Case Title : Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. v. Deep Industries Ltd. & Ors.
Case Number : I.A. No.2 of 2025 in COM.CA. No.18 of 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(APH) 37
The Andhra Pradesh High Court on 7 May held that Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. (ONGC) cannot compel Deep Industries Ltd. (DIL) to re-deposit Rs. 42.89 crore or furnish security for amounts withdrawn in arbitration proceedings, particularly since ONGC had earlier given a written “no objection” permitting withdrawal without any condition.
A Division Bench of Justices Ravi Nath Tilhari and Balaji Medamalli dismissed ONGC's interim application in its pending Section 37 appeal against an arbitral award in favour of Deep Industries Ltd. It held:
“It is for the first time after filing the counter in I.A.No.2 of 2025 that the stand has been taken in the rejoinder affidavit that, the deponent of the counter, official of ONGC had not been instructed to give „no objection‟ to withdraw the amount by DIL. Under the circumstances, the plea taken appears to us to be well afterthought to get over the "no objection" made before the learned Special Judge by way of writing in the counter to permit withdrawal to DIL.”
Rajasthan High Court
Section 9 Relief Cannot Restore Ousted LLP Partner Or Confer Final Control: Rajasthan High Court
Case Title: M/s Srasti Liquor Bottling LLP & Ors. v. Mrs. Sita Rajesh Varma
Case Number: D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2724/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (RAJ) 16
The Rajasthan High Court on 30 April held that a Commercial Court exercising interim powers under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 cannot grant relief that effectively restores a removed partner or confers operational control over an LLP, as such directions would amount to granting final relief prior to the commencement of arbitration.
A Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Shubha Mehta set aside the Jaipur Commercial Court's directions that had restored Sita Rajesh Varma as a designated partner and ordered joint operation of LLP bank accounts along with ROC compliance directions in an internal LLP dispute. It observed:
“It is the arbitrator who will decide all inter se disputes and it is the arbitrator who will take decisions regarding the disputes and how to settle them. The commercial court while exercising power under Section 9 of the Act of 1996 would not have the power to allow one of the parties to initiate proceedings for dissolution of the firm nor it can direct the Respondent to interfere with the affairs of the LLP as it only has 45% of the shares while the Appellant possesses majority shares. We say so as the powers under Section 9 of the Act of 1996 are only to the extent of passing of interim order which cannot be of final nature.”
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Case Title: MPM Homes Developers Ltd Through Its Partner Smt. Annapurna Maheshwari And Others Versus M/S Amarjot Developers And Finance Pvt. Ltd Through Authorized Signatory Vivek Chugh
Case Number : Arbitration Appeal No. 332 Of 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (MP) 32
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has upheld an interim order restraining parties from alienating disputed property in an arbitration matter and held that the interim injunction shall continue during the pendency of arbitration proceedings.
“we are of the view that the learned trial Court was right in exercising its jurisdiction under Section 9 of the Act, 1996 considering the fact that the sole arbitrator was appointed and arbitral tribunal was constituted after the learned trial Court had applied its mind and had entertained the application filed under Section 9 and at that time, the respondent did not had any other efficacious remedy.”
Case Title : Northern Coal Field Ltd. Versus M/S Suresh Construction Co
Case Number: ARBITRATION APPEAL No. 39 of 2011
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (MP) 33
The Madhya Pradesh High Court on 4 May held that limitation for an arbitral claim begins when the claim is denied or repudiated, and not from the date of issuance of notice under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. It further held that an arbitral tribunal commits patent illegality if it treats the Section 21 notice as the starting point of limitation.
A Bench of Justice Vivek Jain partly allowed the appeal filed by Northern Coal Fields Ltd. (NCL) and set aside portions of the arbitral award relating to overburden removal charges, withheld payments, and interest thereon, while upholding the award on escalation charges and interest on escalation amounts. He observed:
“the limitation to initiate Section 11 application is different from the limitation of claim. The limitation of claim is to be assessed up to the date of issuing notice under Section 21 and it will not start from the date of issuing notice under Section 21 and to that extent, the award of the Arbitrator is contrary to the law of the land by misconruing the law of limitation in Arbitration.”
Karnataka High Court
Arbitral Award Cannot Be Set Aside In Entirety If Claims Are Separable: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: Pinaka Infomatics Private Limited v. Karnataka State Electronics Development Corporation Limited
Case Number : Commercial Appeal No. 517 of 2024
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(KAR) 64
The Karnataka High Court has held that an arbitral award comprising distinct and separable claims cannot be set aside in its entirety merely because one component is found invalid, as courts have the power to sever the invalid portion while sustaining the valid portion.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C.M. Poonacha allowed the appeal filed by Pinaka Infomatics Private Limited and modified the order of the Commercial Court, Bengaluru, which had set aside the arbitral award in full. It stated:
“As noted herein before the Supreme Court also observed that the authority to sever the 'invalid' portion of an arbitral award from the 'valid' portion is inherent in the court's jurisdiction when setting aside an award.”
Case Title: P. Nagaraju vs The Special Land Acquisition Officer & Ors
Case Number: MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1034 OF 2026 (AA
Citation :2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 65
The Karnataka High Court has reiterated that courts cannot enhance compensation by modifying arbitral awards in land acquisition disputes under the National Highways Act.
Referring to the precedent set by apex court, the court held,
"The question whether the court could modify the award was also considered by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in a recent decision in Gayatri Balasamy v. ISG Novasoft Technologies Limited3 . The Supreme Court, by a majority held that the arbitral award could be modified to a limited extent to rectify computable, clerical or typographical errors as well as other manifest errors. However, the Supreme Court also clarified that the same was subject to such modification not necessitating a meritsbased evaluation. Thus, the Court exercising the power under Section 34 of the A&C Act cannot re-adjudicate the disputes and substitute its opinion on the merits of the disputes in place of the award of the arbitral tribunal."
Karnataka High Court Dismisses AVTEC Appeal, Holds Unilateral Appointment Of Sole Arbitrator Invalid
Case Title : AVTEC Limited v. PDS Logistics International Private Limited
Case Number: Commercial Appeal No. 245 of 2021
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(KAR) 61
The Karnataka High Court on 29 April dismissed an appeal filed by AVTEC Limited and upheld the Commercial Court's order setting aside an arbitral award.
A Division Bench of Justices Anu Sivaraman and T.M. Nadaf held that parties cannot permit unilateral appointment of a sole arbitrator under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and also ruled that a party which participates in arbitration without objection cannot later dispute jurisdiction. It observed:
“The appellant having participated in the arbitration at Bengaluru on merits without raising any objection to the venue. Therefore, the appellant had acquiesced to the venue and consequently, the seat has been changed to Bengaluru.”
Madras High Court
Case Title : K.Punniyamoorthy & Anr. v. M/s Escape Artists Motion Pictures & Ors.
Case Number: OA No. 283 of 2023
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 125
The Madras High Court recently permitted the release of Dhruva Natchathiram, a Gautham Vasudev Menon directorial, subject to the condition that pre-release payments be made to creditors and that all revenues from the film be routed through a court-monitored bank account.
The film, which stars Chiyaan Vikram in the lead role, has been delayed by nearly eight years since it was first slated for release.
The injunction had originally been obtained in 2023 by two parties to the production agreement, K. Punniyamoorthy and K. Premkumar, who invoked an arbitration clause in their agreement with Escape Artists Motion Pictures and sought pre-reference interim relief to restrain the film's release. Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy recorded that “At the suggestion of the Court, the applicants agreed to the release of the movie subject to certain terms and conditions. Likewise, the respondents also agreed subject to the discharge of payment obligations before and after the release of the movie.”
Case Title : The Federation of Motor Sports Clubs of India v. Blue Band Sports Private Limited & Anr.
Case Number: CRP No. 2287 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 126
The Madras High Court has refused to strike off a civil suit over disputes relating to a motorsports event, including the 49th South India Rally, holding that the existence of an arbitration clause does not by itself bar the jurisdiction of a civil court.
“Further, the existence of an arbitration clause does not ipso facto bar the jurisdiction of the Civil Court unless the procedure contemplated under the Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is duly invoked before the competent Court. Such issues are to be raised and decided before the trial Court and cannot be a ground to invoke Article 227 at the threshold to strike off the plaint”, a single-judge bench of Justice T.V. Thamilselvi held.
Only High Courts Can Entertain Section 34 Challenges In International Arbitration: Madras High Court
Case Title: Waterbury Farrel v. Steel Authority of India Limited & Anr.
Case Number : C.R.P. No. 1138 of 2023
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 123
The Madras High Court on 21 April, held that Section 34 challenges arising from international commercial arbitration must be filed before the High Court and not District Courts, in view of Section 2(1)(e) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 as amended in 2015.
Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy upheld the order of the Principal District Judge, Salem returning the Section 34 petition filed by Waterbury Farrel against Steel Authority of India Limited (SAIL) and Shriram EPC Limited for lack of jurisdiction, while setting aside the direction to re-present it before the New Delhi Court and permitting filing before the Madras High Court within 30 days. He held:
“As regards international commercial arbitration, only the High Court having jurisdiction to decide the questions forming the subject matter of the arbitration if the same had been the subject matter of the suit or the High Court having jurisdiction to hear appeals from decrees of courts subordinate to the High Court qualifies as Court for the purposes of the A & C Act. By virtue of this amendment, the Principal District Judge, Salem, no longer has jurisdiction in relation to an international commercial arbitration, such as in this case.”
Case Title : Ennore Tank Terminals Private Limited v. Kamarajar Port Limited
Case Number: OSA Nos. 263 & 265 of 2019
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 127
The Madras High Court has recently held that when a Master passes an order in execution of an arbitral award arising out of a commercial dispute, the order is equivalent to one passed by the Commercial Division of the High Court itself and cannot be challenged again before the Commercial Division.
"When a Master passes an order in an Execution Petition filed under Section 36 of the Arbitration Act, the said order is equivalent to the order of the Commercial Division of the High Court and there cannot be an appeal filed again before the Commercial Division. To reiterate the Master acts as a delegate of the Court when he discharges judicial act under the Original Side Rules and not when he discharges judicial act under the Commercial Courts Act or on a Commercial dispute adjudicated under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. This view has been strengthened by the subsequent amendment to the procedure when Execution Petitions on a commercial dispute are brought directly before the Commercial Division and not before the Master.,” the Court held.
Allahabad High Court
Dealer's Counter-Offer Not Consent: Allahabad HC Sets Aside HPCL Arbitrator Appointment
Case Title : Laxmi Kant Pandey v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.
Case Number : Arbitration Appeal No. 53 of 2023
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (ALL) 37
The Allahabad High Court has set aside an arbitral award after finding that Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. could not validly appoint its own officer as arbitrator without a clear written waiver from the dealer after the dispute had arisen.
"Hence, the appellant cannot be non-suited for not taking a precise ground in its petition under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 as the ground of illegibility could be raised at any stage and having done so and examined by this Court, it is found that the appointment of the Arbitrator was not valid nor the waiver as per Section 12(5) of the Act was express, thus rendering the appointment legally invalid and even the award made by such an Arbitrator is rendered invalid. Thus, the second issue is answered accordingly,” the court observed.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Jaspreet Singh held that the law requires a clear and express written waiver before an otherwise ineligible arbitrator can be appointed, and such waiver was missing in the present case.
Himachal Pradesh High Court
Case Title: The Learning Curve Educational Trust v. The Indian Institute of Technology
Case Number: CARBC No. 29 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (HP) 14
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has refused interim relief to The Learning Curve Educational Trust, which sought a stay on the termination of its agreement to run a campus school at IIT Mandi.
The court held that, in the facts of the case, a party that failed to challenge a termination notice for nearly two years could not seek protection under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Justice Ajay Mohan Goel observed that the Trust had “slept over the matter” and failed to satisfy the settled requirements for interim relief, including a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss.
"In light of the fact that the petitioner did not take steps to get rid of the Notice of termination dated 01.05.2024, for almost two years, now when the period of two years is coming to an end, by no stretch of imagination the petitioner can plead that it has a prima facie case in its favour.,” the court said.