Nominal Index
Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited (MSEDCL) & Ors. VS R Z Malpani, 2026 LLBiz SC 149
Sujit Kumar Jaiswal v. The Managing Director, Dalmia Research International Pvt. Ltd., 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 339
National Technical Research Organisation v. M/s Corporate Infotech Private Limited, 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 340
Ms. Stalagmite Infracon Pvt. Ltd. v. Ms. Ashray Homes Build Well Pvt. Ltd., 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 349
Union of India vs M/s Varindera Constructions Ltd., 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 350
Amazon Seller Services Pvt Ltd v. Aashirvad Cinemas & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 351
Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Anil Gupta & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 356
Ministry of Health & Family Welfare v. Nagarjuna Construction Ltd., 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 362
PIDGE TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD VS SLIKSYNC TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD, 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 359
M/s Jubilant Marketing Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s Robbins Tunneling and Trenchless Technology India Pvt. Ltd., 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 363
Indian Oil Corporation v. Metro Builders (Orissa) Pvt. Ltd., 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 360
Saravan Singh and Others v. Competent Authority Special Land Acquisition and Another (and connected matters), 2026 LLBiz HC(UTT) 5
M. Mallikarjuna & Anr. v. S.P. Sridhara & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 46
L. Vivekananda v. Handy 101 Solutions and Service Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 48
Tapas Kumar Das v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited, 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 84
Shri Mahavir Developers & 10 Ors. Versus Shri Mahavir Jaina Vidyalaya & 6 Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 185
INFRA Poonam Developers LLP v. Jasbir Singh & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 187
Yash Multi State Rural Cooperative Credit Society Ltd. v. Bharat Arjundas Narang and Others, 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 193
State of Rajasthan & Ors. v Shri I.J. Mamtani & Anr., 2026 LLBiz HC (RAJ) 12
Accurate Thermal Spray Private Limited v. SKF Engineering and Lubrication India Private Limited, 2026 LLBiz HC(GUJ) 51
Unicon Engineers v. M/s Super Steam Boiler Engineers Pvt. Ltd., 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 93
Helwett Packard Enterprise India Private Limited v Bhopal Smart City Development Corporation Limited, 2026 LLBiz HC (MP) 21
M/s RCC-ACC (JV) v. Board of Major Port Authority and Anr, 2026 LLBiz HC(KER) 64
Aditya Birla Real Estate Limited v. Orient Craft Limited, 2026 LLBiz HC (PNH) 18
Supreme Court
Case Title : MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED (MSEDCL) & ORS. VS R Z MALPANI
Case Number : SLP (C) No. 36889 OF 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 149
The Supreme Court on Thursday held that courts may refuse to refer parties to arbitration at the Section 11 stage in the rarest of rare cases where, even on a prima facie view, no arbitration agreement exists, carving out a narrow exception to the principle of minimal judicial interference.
Clarifying that judicial scrutiny at the stage of appointing arbitrators is otherwise limited to examining the prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement and that courts should follow the principle of “when in doubt, do refer”, a bench of Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Atul S. Chandurkar observed:
“It goes without saying that the scope of inquiry at the stage of Section 11 is extremely limited and only pertains to an examination about prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement. Judicial non-interference in the arbitration process is the sacrosanct principle which guides alternative dispute resolution and Courts must be highly circumspect in interfering at the referral stage, especially since there is no appeal available in the 1996 Act against an order under Section 11. The Arbitral Tribunal, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 16 must be left to decide on its jurisdiction. The Courts should follow the principle of 'When in doubt, do refer' and lean towards referring matters to arbitration when the arbitration agreement is prima facie existent.”
Delhi High Court
Delhi High Court Sets Aside Arbitral Award For Refusal To Examine Key Witnesses Who Left Employment
Case Title : Sujit Kumar Jaiswal v. The Managing Director, Dalmia Research International Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : O.M.P. 110/2009
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 339
The Delhi High Court on 1 April held that refusing to examine key witnesses solely because they were no longer employees of the company undermines a fair arbitral hearing, particularly when those witnesses were directly involved in the transaction. Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar set aside an arbitral award in a dispute between Sujit Kumar Jaiswal and Dalmia Research International Pvt. Ltd., holding that by selectively accepting the company's version, the Tribunal deprived him of a fair opportunity to prove his case, contrary to Section 18 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which mandates equal treatment.
The Court stated: “In the opinion of this Court, the mere fact that such individuals were no longer in the employment of the Respondent could not have constituted a valid ground for refusing their examination, particularly when their testimony had a direct bearing on the authenticity of the disputed Agreement.
Delhi HC Upholds ₹7.14 Crore Arbitral Award In Favour Of Corporate Infotech Against NTRO
Case Title : National Technical Research Organisation v. M/s Corporate Infotech Private Limited
Case Number : O.M.P. (COMM) 378/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 340
The Delhi High Court on 1 April, held that Corporate Infotech Private Limited (CIPL) is entitled to the balance payment of Rs. 7,14,61,511 from the National Technical Research Organisation (NTRO) and upheld the arbitral award in its favour in a dispute over a secure intranet network project. A Bench of Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar observed that liquidated damages could not be imposed and final payments could not be withheld where delays were attributable to both parties and the system had already been taken over for operational use. He observed:
“Having rejected the claim for levy of LD and having found no established loss or subsisting breach, justifying retention of the said amount, the learned Tribunal concluded that the Respondent was entitled to the release of the withheld balance consideration. The direction for payment thus flows as a natural consequence of the rejection of LD and the determination of completion of contractual milestones.”
Filing Same Defective Petition Repeatedly To Save Limitation Is Abuse Of Process: Delhi High Court
Case Title : Ms. Stalagmite Infracon Pvt. Ltd. v. Ms. Ashray Homes Build Well Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : O.M.P. (COMM) 367/2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 349
The Delhi High Court has refused to entertain a challenge to an arbitral award, holding that repeatedly re-filing the same defective petition without curing defects, in an attempt to stay within limitations, amounts to a “flagrant misuse and abuse of the process of Court”. A bench of Justice Mini Pushkarna found that Stalagmite Infracon Pvt. Ltd. had filed its Section 34 petition on the last permissible day but continued to re-file the same defective 701-page petition multiple times without curing 19 Registry objections, including even correcting the case category, and only removed defects months later after expanding the filing to 2,622 pages.
“Such conduct of the petitioner constitutes a flagrant misuse and abuse of the process of Court, and demonstrates that the petitioner acted with willful neglect, in reckless disregard to the timelines set out for removing the defects and objections, as raised by the Registry of this Court.”
Case Title : Union of India vs M/s Varindera Constructions Ltd.
Case Number : O.M.P. (COMM) 73/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 350
The Delhi High Court has observed that the time limit for arbitrators to pass awards cannot be treated as a rigid ground to invalidate arbitral proceedings and dismissed a challenge to an arbitral award on the ground that the arbitrator's mandate had expired. “The statutory architecture of Section 29A of the A&C Act must therefore be understood not as a rigid mechanism intended to invalidate arbitral proceedings upon a mere lapse of time, but as a supervisory framework designed to ensure timely completion of arbitration while preserving the continuity of the adjudicatory process. The scheme of the provision itself makes this position clear,” the court observed.
Case Title : Amazon Seller Services Pvt Ltd v. Aashirvad Cinemas & Ors.
Case Number : O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 148/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 351
The Delhi High Court has temporarily restrained Aashirvad Cinemas from creating any third-party OTT rights in the upcoming Mohanlal-starrer Malayalam film tentatively titled “Drishyam 3”, granting interim protection to Amazon Seller Services Pvt. Ltd. in an arbitration dispute. Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar held that Amazon had made out a case for ad-interim relief and barred the producers, till the next hearing, from “creating or otherwise dealing with any third-party rights in respect of the non-linear internet-based rights” in the film, including its Malayalam version, dubbed versions, and a potential Hindi remake.
“Keeping in view the submissions advanced by the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner at length and in particular, the submissions relating to the triple test, this Court is satisfied that the essential ingredients for grant of interim relief, namely, the existence of a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and likelihood of irreparable harm, stand established in favour of the Petitioner,” the court observed.
Case Title : Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Anil Gupta & Ors.
Case Number : O.M.P. 709/2011
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 356
The Delhi High Court has upheld an arbitral award granting 18% interest on the awarded sum to a contractor, holding that tribunals have wide discretion to fix interest rates under the pre-2015 arbitration law. Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, in a dispute between the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) and Anil Gupta, however, modified the award to direct that interest would run only from July 6, 2008, the date of invocation of arbitration, instead of March 8, 2004.
“Under the statutory framework prevailing prior to the 2015 amendment, Section 31(7)(a) of the the A&C Act, conferred a wide and substantive discretion upon the learned Arbitral Tribunal to award pre-reference as well as pendente lite interest at such rate as it deemed reasonable, unless the parties had expressly agreed otherwise. The provision, in its plain terms, recognised the autonomy of the Arbitral forum to determine the appropriate rate of interest having regard to the factual matrix of the dispute, the conduct of the parties, and the period during which the claimant was deprived of monies found due,” the court observed.
Case Title : Ministry of Health & Family Welfare v. Nagarjuna Construction Ltd.
Case Number : O.M.P. (COMM) 337/2017
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 362
The Delhi High Court has upheld an arbitral award in favour of NCC Limited in a dispute arising from the construction of the medical college and hostel complex at AIIMS Bhopal, finding no ground for interference under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Justice Jasmeet Singh dismissed a petition filed by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare challenging the arbitral award dated 8 May 2017 passed by a sole arbitrator.
"Since, the delays leading to the prolongation of Contract were clearly held attributable to the petitioner, these co-related counter claims flowing from the same cause were rejected by the Arbitrator. This Court finds no reason to interfere with the findings of the Arbitrator regarding attribution of delays in execution of works under the Contract and consequently, the findings of the Arbitrator qua the aforesaid counterclaims also deserves to be upheld", it held.
Seat Of Arbitration Can Be Inferred From Exclusive Jurisdiction Clause: Delhi High Court
Case Title : PIDGE TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD VS SLIKSYNC TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD
Case Number : ARB.P. 390/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 359
The Delhi High Court on 8 April 2026 held that where an agreement provides for arbitration and also contains an exclusive jurisdiction clause, such clause indicates the seat of arbitration even if the agreement does not expressly specify the seat or venue.
A Single-Judge Bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad heard a petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 filed by Pidge Technologies Pvt. Ltd. seeking appointment of an arbitrator in its dispute with Sliksync Technologies Pvt. Ltd. arising out of a Merchant Services Agreement dated 18 September 2024. He held:
“...this Court holds that it has the jurisdiction to entertain the present Petition and appoint an arbitrator. In view of the above, this Court is inclined to appoint a Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes arising between the parties.
Party Cannot Bypass MSMED Act Mechanism To Seek Arbitrator Appointment: Delhi High Court
Case Title : M/s Jubilant Marketing Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s Robbins Tunneling and Trenchless Technology India Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : ARB.P. 2129/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 363
The Delhi High Court on 9 April 2026 held that once a party invokes the dispute resolution mechanism under Section 18 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 and the matter is pending before the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, it cannot bypass that process by approaching the Court under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. A Bench of Justice Mini Pushkarna clarified that even where the Council delays in initiating arbitration, the statutory mechanism under the MSMED Act cannot be sidestepped, as conciliation must first conclude before arbitration can commence. The Court observed:
“Once a party initiates the mechanism envisaged under Section 18 of the MSMED Act, it is bound to adhere to the statutory framework and cannot be permitted to abandon the process midway. Further, the proceedings initiated thereunder must necessarily be taken to their logical conclusion. Such party cannot seek recourse under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act, for appointment of an arbitrator.”
Case Title : Indian Oil Corporation v. Metro Builders (Orissa) Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : O.M.P. (COMM) 246/2016
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 360
The Delhi High Court has set aside an arbitral award, holding that an award lacking intelligible reasoning is liable to be set aside under Section 34, as arbitral awards must satisfy the requirement of reasoned decisions under Section 31(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. A Bench of Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar held that an arbitral award must disclose a clear reasoning process and cannot merely reproduce pleadings or record conclusions without analysis.
On a closer look at the award, the Court found little to indicate any independent application of mind. What was presented as reasoning was, in substance, a reproduction of the parties' pleadings and submissions. The conclusions, it noted, appeared as bare assertions without any adjudicatory reasoning.
Uttarakhand High Court
Case Title : Saravan Singh and Others v. Competent Authority Special Land Acquisition and Another (and connected matters)
Case Number : Writ Petition (MS) No. 534 of 2025 and connected petitions
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(UTT) 5
The Uttarakhand High Court has dismissed a batch of petitions filed by landowners challenging an arbitrator's rejection of their delayed claims for enhanced compensation under the National Highways Act, holding that such challenges cannot be entertained in writ jurisdiction when a statutory remedy is available under the arbitration law.
It noted that a remedy is available under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act to challenge such orders.
A single bench of Justice Rakesh Thapliyal noted that the question whether limitation law applies to such arbitrations is still pending before the Supreme Court, but said this does not justify bypassing the statutory route.
“As pointed out the issue whether Limitation Act would apply or not is still subjudice before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and admittedly, the petitioners have a statutory remedy as provided under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, therefore, taking into consideration the preliminary objection of National Highway Authority, this Court is of the view of that all these writ petitions are not maintainable against the order of Arbitrator / Collector, Udham Singh Nagar.,” the court said.
Karnataka High Court
Disputes Under Subsequent Agreement Without Arbitration Clause Not Arbitrable: Karnataka High Court
Case Title : M. Mallikarjuna & Anr. v. S.P. Sridhara & Ors.
Case Number : MFA No. 2192 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 46
The Karnataka High Court on 2 April, held that an Arbitral Tribunal cannot decide disputes arising from a subsequent agreement that lacks an arbitration clause, nor can it rely on an earlier lapsed agreement whose arbitration clause has ceased to operate. A Bench comprising Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C.M. Poonacha set aside an award that directed execution of a sale deed between M. Mallikarjuna and Smt. Rajeshwari Mallikarjuna (appellants) and S.P. Sridhara and S.P. Muralidhar (respondents).The Court noted:
“There was no arbitration agreement between the parties for referring disputes relating to a period prior to the constitution of the Firm under the partnership deed to arbitration.” It added that the “parties entered into a fresh agreement, which constitutes a novation. The arbitration clause under the earlier agreement is therefore inapplicable. Unless the parties expressly agree otherwise, disputes arising from the novated agreement cannot be referred to arbitration under the earlier clause.”
Case Title : L. Vivekananda v. Handy 101 Solutions and Service Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
Case Number : Commercial Appeal No. 95 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 48
The Karnataka High Court has recently refused to condone a delay of 85 days in filing an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, holding that a busy schedule and travel do not constitute “sufficient cause." Holding that the appeal was barred by limitation and also devoid of merit, the court dismissed the appeal filed by L Vivekananda against Handy 101 Solutions and Service Pvt. Ltd. and its promoter Peter Pushparaj, thereby upholding the Commercial Court's order and the arbitral award, which had rejected Vivekananda's claim for Rs. 35 lakh under a Share Purchase Agreement.
A Division Bench of Justices Anu Sivaraman and Tara Vitasta Ganju observed, “As stated above, I.A.No.1/2023 has been filed by the appellant/claimant, which sets out that the reason for the delay was because the appellant/claimant had a busy schedule and was travelling out of station and could not instruct his counsel." The Court further reiterated that “the expression 'sufficient cause' is not elastic enough to cover long delays, which are beyond the period provided by the appeal provision itself.
Calcutta High Court
Case Title : Tapas Kumar Das v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited
Case Number : APOT/32/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 84
The Calcutta High Court has upheld a Single Judge's order setting aside an arbitral award after noting that the arbitrator had entered into constitutional considerations under Article 12 (Definition of State) in a dispute arising purely out of a commercial contract involving Indian Oil Corporation Limited. It observed that such an approach was misplaced and further held that the arbitrator had rewritten the terms of the contract and awarded damages without any supporting evidence.
A Division Bench of Justices Debangsu Basak and Md. Shabbar Rashidi held that, "Learned Single Judge also noted that, learned Arbitrator embarked upon a discussion as to the applicability of Constitutional provisions as, the respondent is an authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Learned Single Judge held that the contract between the parties was voluntarily undertaken and that there was no scope to enter into the arena of infringement of constitutional right as done by the learned Arbitrator."
Bombay High Court
Case Title : Shri Mahavir Developers & 10 Ors. Versus Shri Mahavir Jaina Vidyalaya & 6 Ors.
Case Number : COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION PETITION NO.128 OF 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 185
The Bombay High Court has recently held that a developer cannot avoid arbitration by claiming tenancy protection under the Small Causes Courts Act when its right to use the property is only incidental to a development agreement.
Upholding the arbitral award, the court rejected the developer's objection that the dispute was not arbitrable on the ground that it involved eviction of a licensee, which would fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Small Causes Court under the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act (PSCC Act). “The objection on arbitrability on the ground of exclusive jurisdiction under the PSCC Act is untenable since the license granted to the Developer was incidental to the development rights conferred on the Developer. Once such development rights are not held as being amenable to enforcement by way of specific relief, the license would also become irrelevant,” the court observed.
Case Title : INFRA Poonam Developers LLP v. Jasbir Singh & Ors.
Case Number : Arbitration Application (L) No. 37441 of 2025 with Interim Application (L) No. 11418 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 187
The Bombay High Court has condoned a 258-day delay in filing a plea for appointment of an arbitrator, holding that efforts taken by a developer to prevent acquisition of a redevelopment project by the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA) constituted sufficient and exceptional cause. A bench of Justice Sandeep V. Marne allowed INFRA Poonam Developers LLP to initiate arbitration against Jasbir Singh and other partners, observing that the cause to seek arbitration arose only after MHADA acquired the property and the firm lost possession.
The court noted: "The Applicant was thus required to take several steps for ensuring preservation of the subject matter of arbitration, before it could seek adjudication of disputes with other partners of the Firm."
Arbitrator Under MSCS Act Can Presume Membership If Not Specifically Denied: Bombay High Court
Case Title : Yash Multi State Rural Cooperative Credit Society Ltd. v. Bharat Arjundas Narang and Others
Case Number : Arbitration Appeal No. 23 Of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 193
The Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court on 30 March, held that membership of a cooperative society is a jurisdictional fact for invoking arbitration under Section 84 of the Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act (MSCS Act). However, if such membership is not specifically denied, the arbitrator may presume its existence from the material on record. Justice Arun R. Pedneker allowed the appeal filed by Yash Multi State Rural Co-operative Credit Society Ltd. (the Society) and set aside the order of the Principal District Judge, Ahmednagar, which had interfered with the arbitral award, restoring the award in favour of the Society. He held:
“Ordinarily the Society grants loans only to members of the Society. Accordingly, no issue is framed as regards whether the borrowers are the members of the Society and further no evidence is lead to that effect. In this factual situation the Arbitrator had not committed any error.”
Rajasthan High Court
When Can Arbitral Awards Be Set Aside? Rajasthan High Court Lays Down Principles To Check Perversity
Case Title : State of Rajasthan & Ors. v Shri I.J. Mamtani & Anr.
Case Number : D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2530/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (RAJ) 12
While underscoring that the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was enacted to ensure effective and expeditious resolution of disputes, the Rajasthan High Court expressed concern over the increasing trend of arbitral awards being challenged “as if an appeal has been filed.” A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Shubha Mehta dismissed an appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan against an order of the Commercial Court which had rejected its objections under Section 34 of the Act and affirmed the arbitral award.
“The Act of 1996 essentially was passed with the purpose of deciding disputes in an effective and quick manner. However, we see and note that in almost all the cases where arbitration awards are passed, the same are taken up by way of raising objections under Section 34 of the Act of 1996, as if an appeal has been filed..”, it held.
Gujarat High Court
Case Title : Accurate Thermal Spray Private Limited v. SKF Engineering and Lubrication India Private Limited
Case Number : R/First Appeal No. 4652 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(GUJ) 51
The Gujarat High Court has upheld the setting aside of a Rs 25 crore arbitral award in a dispute over a failed industrial project, holding that the tribunal had effectively rewritten the contract by imposing an obligation to provide an approach road that was never agreed upon, while fastening liability despite the claimant not having set up the factory, which was a prerequisite for triggering the respondent's obligations.
It further found that the arbitral tribunal had travelled beyond the contract by relying on email exchanges and surrounding circumstances to conclude that SKF had agreed to provide access to the claimant's land, even though the written agreement contained no such clause. “By holding that the respondent had agreed to provide approach road to the claimant and non providing of the same had obstructed / prevented the claimant from setting up the factory, i.e. from performing the contractual obligation of the claimant, the learned Arbitrator has thrust upon a new liability upon the respondent unilaterally as against its intention. That being the case, it is clear that the award had created a new contract for the parties on unilateral intention of the claimant against the intention of the respondent. A fundamental principle of justice has been breached by unilateral addition or alteration of the contract foisted upon an unwilling party,” the Court said.
Madras High Court
Case Title : Unicon Engineers v. M/s Super Steam Boiler Engineers Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : OSA (CAD) No. 142 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 93
Reiterating that the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is a self-contained code, the Madras High Court has dismissed a Letters Patent appeal against a Single Judge's order directing a 75% pre-deposit in a challenge to an MSME arbitral award. A Division Bench of Justices C.V. Karthikeyan and K. Kumaresh Babu held, “The order of the learned Single Judge does not fall under the ambit of Order XLIII of the Code of Civil Procedure and therefore, this appeal filed under the Letters Patent would not lie.”
Emphasising the restrictive nature of appellate remedies, the Court observed that where a special statute provides a self-contained framework, “the applicability of the general law procedure would be impliedly excluded.”
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Case Title : Helwett Packard Enterprise India Private Limited v Bhopal Smart City Development Corporation Limited
Case Number : AC No. 150 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (MP) 21
The Madhya Pradesh High Court on 31 March held that every arbitrator in a tribunal, including party-appointed arbitrators, must remain independent and impartial under the Seventh Schedule and Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Justice Vivek Jain appointed Justice K.K. Lahoti as the sole arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between Hewlett Packard Enterprise India Private Limited (HP/petitioner) and Bhopal Smart City Development Corporation Limited (BSCC/respondent), after the latter nominated the Commissioner, Urban Administration and Development Department, Madhya Pradesh (UADD).
The Bench held: “The respondents could have appointed some other independent and impartial person as their arbitrator because independence and impartiality is not required only of third arbitrator in a three members arbitral tribunal, but each and every arbitrator needs to be independent and impartial.”
Kerala High Court
Writ Appeal Not Entertainable When Arbitration Offers Adequate Remedy: Kerala High Court
Case Title : M/s RCC-ACC (JV) v. Board of Major Port Authority and Anr
Case Number : WA No. 834 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(KER) 64
The Kerala High Court on 6 April, declined to entertain a writ appeal arising from termination of a contractual agreement, holding that when efficacious alternative remedies exist under arbitration, the writ court ordinarily refrains from exercising its discretionary jurisdiction. A Division Bench of Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V.M observed: “…having regard to the fact that there are efficacious alternative remedies available where such issues can be more conveniently dealt with and decided, the writ court in appropriate situations decline to exercise this discretionary remedy.”
Punjab & Haryana High Court
Arbitration Clause In Purchase Orders Enough to Appoint Arbitrator: Punjab & Haryana High Court
Case Title : Aditya Birla Real Estate Limited v. Orient Craft Limited
Case Number : ARB-230-2023(O&M)
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (PNH) 18
The Punjab and Haryana High Court on 19 March, held that an arbitration clause in purchase orders is sufficient under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to allow appointment of an arbitrator. A Single Judge Bench of Justice Jasgurpreet Singh Puri allowed a petition by Aditya Birla Real Estate Limited and appointed Justice Ajay Tewari (Retd.) as the Sole Arbitrator in disputes arising out of 20 purchase orders issued by Orient Craft Limited for the supply of fabric. He noted:
“From a perusal of the note appended with Clause 12, it becomes very clear that there is a prima facie existence of an arbitration clause… both the essential conditions for appointment of an Arbitrator under Section 11 of the Act stand satisfied namely, prima facie existence of an arbitration clause and its invocation thereof by issuance of a notice.”