NOMINAL INDEX
Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd. v. Parsa Kente Collieries Limited, 2026 LLBiz SC 262
KKH Finvest Pvt. Ltd. and Another v. Ashiesh Shukla and Others, 2026 LLBiz SC 261
Aroha Labs Pte. Ltd. v. Mr. Prem Dharmani & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC(KAR) 133
Rishabraj Estate Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Heeramani Ratan Cooperative Housing Society Limited, 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 441
M/s. S. E. Investments Ltd. (now known as Paisalo Digital Limited) v. Star Bazaar Private Limited & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 436
Arkawelle Infra Private Limited v. Carbon Minus Energy Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 431
Reliance Asset Reconstruction Co. Ltd. v. Hiroo Hotchand Advani, 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 424
Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai v. Kekobad Dossabhoy Doongriwalla & Anr., 2026 LLBiz HC BOM 426
Union of India and Others v. M/s Triveni Constructions, 2026 LLBiz HC(PNH) 40
CE Testing Company Private Limited v. Madhucon Projects Limited and Another, 2026 LLBiz HC(CAL) 186
Union of India v. Goodrich Foodtech Ltd., 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 799
Vantage Integrated Securities Solution Pvt. Ltd. v. Spark Technologies Pvt. Ltd., 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 792
Asian Hotels North Limited v. Exclusive Capital Limited & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 796
Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. v. National Hydro Electric Power Corporation Ltd., 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 780
National Highways Authority of India v. The Louis Berger Group Inc. JV with M/s COWI A/S, 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 779
McNally Bharat Engineering Company Limited v. Metso India Pvt. Ltd., 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 777
U.P. Public Works Department, through Chief Engineer, Central Zone, Lucknow v. M/s Vriddhi Infratech India Pvt. Ltd., 2026 LLBiz HC(ALL) 61
Union of India, Ministry of Railways, Thru. Divisional Railway Manager/Engineer, and 5 Others v. Gallant Ispat Ltd. Thru. General Manager Navneet Jindal, 2026 LLBiz HC(ALL) 60
DLF Southern Towns Pvt Ltd v. Aditya Deo and Anr., 2026 LLBiz HC(KER) 155
M/s Construction Engineer v. Sher-e-Kashmir University of Agricultural Sciences & Technology, Jammu & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC(JAM) 24
Supreme Court
Case Title : RAJASTHAN RAJYA VIDYUT UTPADAN NIGAM LTD. VERSUS PARSA KENTE COLLIERIES LIMITED
Case Number: Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 25773/2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz SC 262
The Supreme Court has recently replaced Justice Arun Mishra with former judge Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul as sole arbitrator in a dispute between Adani-linked Parsa Kente Collieries Ltd. and Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd.
To that extent, the court has modified the Rajasthan High Court's July 3, 2026 order appointing Justice Mishra as the sole arbitrator.
The dispute arises from their agreement for mining and supply of coal from the Parsa East and Kanta Basan blocks.
A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana replaced the arbitrator after recording that the parties had mutually agreed to appoint Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, former Supreme Court Judge as the sole arbitrator.
Modifying the High Court's order, the Court said, "Though we do not find the ground urged for change of arbitrator legally sustainable, however, during the course of hearing, the parties have mutually agreed for appointment of Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, former Judge of this Court, to be the sole arbitrator. The impugned judgment of the High Court stands modified in terms of the aforesaid."
Case Title : KKH Finvest Pvt. Ltd. and Another v. Ashiesh Shukla and Others
Case Number : Civil Appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 4222 of 2025
Citation 2026 LLBiz SC 261
The Supreme Court has held that a non-signatory consultant-shareholder whose performance under a separate Share Purchase Agreement is fundamental to completing a Memorandum of Settlement (MoS) can be treated as a "veritable party" to the settlement's arbitration agreement.
Allowing an appeal filed by KKH Finvest Private Limited and Sensorise Digital Services Private Limited, a Division Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva observed, "it is clear that the performance of his obligations by Ashiesh Shukla under his Share Purchase Agreement was fundamental to the completion of the obligations spelt out in the MoS. Being a shareholder in his own right, unless Ashiesh Shukla also transferred his shares, the MoS would inevitably remain incomplete."
The bench set aside the Delhi High Court's decision refusing to refer consultant-shareholder Ashiesh Shukla to arbitration. It held that he was also a veritable party to the MoS.
High Courts
Karnataka High Court
Case Title : Aroha Labs Pte. Ltd. v. Mr. Prem Dharmani & Ors.
Case Number: AP.IM. No. 4 of 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(KAR) 133
The Karnataka High Court has ruled that merely choosing a foreign seat of arbitration does not, by itself, prevent Indian courts from granting interim relief under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
It observed that excluding the jurisdiction of Indian courts requires an express agreement between the parties.
Justice M.G.S. Kamal observed, "Therefore, mere existence of an arbitration clause providing place of arbitration outside India itself cannot be construed as ''an agreement to the contrary''. In other words, parties are required to expressly agree and provide that provisions of Sections 9, 27 and Clause (b) of sub-Section(1) and sub-Section(3) of Section 37 of Part I of Act, 1996 are not applicable to the terms of the agreement"
Bombay High Court
General Body Approval Not A Formality In Housing Society Redevelopment: Bombay High Court
Case Title : Rishabraj Estate Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Heeramani Ratan Cooperative Housing Society Limited
Case Number : Commercial Arbitration Petition (L) No. 19177 of 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 441
The Bombay High Court has held that approval of a housing society's General Body cannot be treated as a mere formality in redevelopment, observing that members surrender possession of their existing homes and thereafter receive reconstructed flats.
“Redevelopment permanently affects rights of all members because they surrender possession of their existing premises and thereafter receive reconstructed flats. Therefore, approval of the General Body cannot be treated as formality,” Justice Amit Borkar observed.
The court made the observation while dismissing a petition filed by Rishabraj Estate Developers Pvt. Ltd., which sought interim protection over its proposed redevelopment of Heeramani Ratan Cooperative Housing Society Limited's property in Goregaon (West), Mumbai.
Case Title : M/s. S. E. Investments Ltd. (now known as Paisalo Digital Limited) v. Star Bazaar Private Limited & Ors. (with connected matters)
Case Number : Interim Application No. 2007 of 2026 in Commercial Execution Application No. 59 of 2016
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 436
The Bombay High Court on 4 August held that an executing court cannot refuse enforcement of an arbitral award arising from proceedings initiated before the 2015 amendment to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 merely because the arbitrator was appointed unilaterally, unless the appointment lacked contractual authority and was made without the other party's consent.
Justice Jitendra Jain held that pre-23 October 2015 arbitral awards remain enforceable where the arbitration agreement named the arbitrator, identified the office-holder who would act as arbitrator, or authorised one party to appoint the arbitrator, unless the appointment was successfully challenged. He observed:
“Unilateral appointment of an arbitrator prior to 23 October 2015 wherein the arbitration clause provides for a named arbitrator or by designation or authorising appointment of an arbitrator by one of the party will not be without jurisdiction and consequently, the proceedings arising therefrom would not be void ab initio except in cases, where there is no contractual clause in the agreement naming a particular arbitrator or conferring on one of the party the right to unilateral appointment of an arbitrator but the appointment is made by one of the party in the absence of consent of other party. In the latter case, it will be void.”
Case Title : Arkawelle Infra Private Limited v. Carbon Minus Energy Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Case Number : Commercial Arbitration Petition (L) No. 294 of 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 431
The Bombay High Court has ruled that the public infrastructure nature of a project does not, by itself, prevent courts from granting interim protection under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
It observed that courts must balance the parties' commercial rights while ensuring that public projects are not delayed.
"Merely because the project relates to public infrastructure, it does not take away the jurisdiction of this court under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The court is required to balance the competing interests of both sides. While ensuring that the public project is not delayed, the court must also see that rights of the parties are not defeated before the disputes are adjudicated by the learned Arbitral Tribunal," Justice Amit Borkar observed.
Case Title : Reliance Asset Reconstruction Co. Ltd. v. Hiroo Hotchand Advani
Case Number : Commercial Appeal (L) No. 14725 of 2026 in Commercial Execution Application No. 43 of 2025, along with Commercial Appeal (L) No. 15441 of 2026 in Commercial Execution Application No. 44 of 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 424
The Bombay High Court on 20 July held that orders recording satisfaction of arbitral awards can be challenged only if they fall within the categories specifically provided under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
A Division Bench of Justices Bharati Dangre and Manjusha Deshpande dismissed the commercial appeals filed by Reliance Asset Reconstruction Co. Ltd. against Hiroo Hotchand Advani, holding that the Arbitration and Conciliation Act provides a complete appellate framework and parties cannot invoke the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 to create a wider right of appeal. It observed:
“Thus, in our view, any attempt to draw an artificial semantic distinction between a 'Judgment' and an 'Order' under Section 13(1-A) of the Act of 2015, to bypass Section 37, would be a fundamentally erroneous approach in the wake of the limited scope of judicial intervention in the arbitration proceedings.”
Arbitral Tribunal Can Pass Interim Award Without Framing Issues Or Separate Plea: Bombay High Court
Case Title : Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai v. Kekobad Dossabhoy Doongriwalla & Anr
Case Number : Commercial Arbitration Petition No. 543 of 2025 with Interim Application (L) No. 23543 of 2023
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC BOM 426
The Bombay High Court has ruled that an arbitral tribunal can pass an interim award at any stage of the proceedings on any matter it is empowered to finally decide, even if no formal issue has been framed or a separate application seeking such an award has been filed.
Justice N.J. Jamadar observed that the decisive question is whether the parties are in dispute over a matter that the arbitral tribunal is required to finally determine, and not whether a formal issue has been settled for adjudication.
“On a bare textual reading of Section 31(6), and the use of expressions 'at any time' and 'on any matter' which do not seem to limit the arbitral Tribunal's power to pass an interim award, save and except that such an award must relate to any matter with respect to which the Arbitral Tribunal may make a final arbitral award, the aforesaid submission premised on the determination of an issue that has been framed or arises for consideration, cannot be acceded to. The true test would be, whether the parties are at issue over a particular matter in respect of which the Arbitral Tribunal is called upon to make a final arbitral award? If the answer is in the affirmative, then the aspect as to whether an issue is settled for determination or not, pales in significance.”, the court ruled.
Punjab And Haryana High Court
Case Title : Union of India and others v. M/s Triveni Constructions
Case Number : CWP-38566-2025 (O&M)
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(PNH) 40
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has recently ruled that an arbitral award can be executed before any court where the judgment debtor's assets are located and is not restricted to the place where the award was passed.
Dismissing a writ petition filed by the Union of India and others against Triveni Constructions, Justice Jasgurpreet Singh Puri observed that once an arbitral award is made, the arbitrator's mandate comes to an end and the award is not the decree of any particular court.
Referring to the Supreme Court's rulings in Sundaram Finance Ltd. v. Abdul Samad and Cheran Properties Ltd. v. Kasturi and Sons Ltd., the court observed:
"It is not the case where there are no assets of the petitioners located in Chandigarh and just because an award is passed in Patna (Bihar) would not mean that execution would also lie only at Patna because once the award is passed, the mandate of the arbitrator terminates and the award is not a decree of a particular Court and is only by way of a legal fiction. Hence, the award can be filed for execution before any Court anywhere in the country where such decree can be executed."
Calcutta High Court
Case Title : CE Testing Company Private Limited v. Madhucon Projects Limited and Another
Case Number : EC-COM 72 of 2025 with IA No. GA-COM 1 of 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 186
The Calcutta High Court has ruled that a certified copy of an arbitral award carrying only a third-party certification that the original was signed, without reproducing the arbitrators' signatures, does not amount to delivery of a "signed copy" under Section 31(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Without such delivery, the limitation period for challenging the award under Section 34 does not begin, making an execution petition for its enforcement premature.
A single bench of Justice Gaurang Kanth observed that Section 31(5) requires parties to receive a copy that itself bears the arbitrators' signatures so they can verify that the award validly emanates from the arbitral tribunal.
"A certificate by a third party, however authorised, that an unseen original was signed cannot be equated with a copy that itself bears the signatures, since the very object of Section31(5), as explained in Tecco Trichy Engineers (supra), is to permit eachparty to satisfy itself, from the document delivered to it, that the award emanates validly from the Tribunal”, the court ruled.
Delhi High Court
Case Title : Union of India v. Goodrich Foodtech Ltd.
Case Number: O.M.P. (COMM) 375/2022 & connected applications
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 799
The Delhi High Court has set aside a ₹6.35 crore arbitral award in favour of Goodrich Foodtech Ltd. in a dispute with the Ministry of Defence over contracts for supplying malted milk food with cocoa.
Justice Subramonium Prasad held that the unilateral appointment of the arbitrator by the Union through its Competent Financial Authority was invalid under Section 12(5) read with the Seventh Schedule of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The court found that the authority was part of the Ministry of Defence and an official of the Union of India, which was itself a party to the dispute.
The court observed, “the arbitrator shall be appointed by the Competent Financial Authority, who is a part of the Ministry of Defence, and thus, an official of the Petitioner/Union of India, who is a party to the dispute herein and as such, not qualified to appoint an arbitrator.”
Case Title : Vantage Integrated Securities Solution Pvt. Ltd. v. Spark Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : FAO (COMM) 203/2026 and CM APPL. 47883/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 792
The Delhi High Court on 5 August upheld an award directing Vantage Integrated Securities Solution Pvt. Ltd. to pay Rs. 9.92 lakh to Spark Technologies Pvt. Ltd., holding that the former's unilateral notice stating that it would recover any liquidated damages imposed by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) from the latter did not create a binding contractual obligation.
A Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetrapal and Shail Jain noted that liquidated damages imposed by a party's client under a separate contract cannot be recovered from a supplier unless the supplier had expressly accepted such liability under their own agreement. It observed:
“The said communication merely conveyed the Appellant's apprehension that liquidated damages might be imposed by the RBI and its intention to recover the same from the Respondent. Such communication neither formed part of the Purchase Order nor constituted a contractual stipulation governing the rights and liabilities of the parties. More importantly, there is nothing on record to indicate that the Respondent accepted the said stipulation or that the parties mutually agreed to modify the contractual terms.”
Delhi High Court Says Final Relief Can Be Granted At Interim Stage If Strong Prima Facie Case Exists
Case Title : Asian Hotels North Limited v. Exclusive Capital Limited & Ors.
Case Number : CS(COMM) 376/2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 796
The Delhi High Court has granted Asian Hotels North Limited what was effectively the final relief sought in a dispute over loan security documents by directing DBS Bank India Limited to release the original title deeds and other security documents of the Hyatt Regency Hotel.
The relief was made conditional on Asian Hotels depositing Exclusive Capital Limited's entire disputed claim of ₹159.66 crore with the court, thereby securing its monetary claim pending adjudication.
Exempting Asian Hotels from mandatory pre-institution mediation in view of the urgency arising from its ₹300 crore financing, the Court held that interim relief may, in exceptional cases, amount to granting the final relief itself.
Justice Vikas Mahajan observed, "Under certain circumstances the court may grant an interim relief though it amounts to granting the final relief itself. The law in this regard is well settled that where very strong prima facie case is shown to exist, besides the balance of convenience and irreparable injury forcefully tilting the balance of the case totally in favour of the applicant, such a relief can be granted. The court would grant such an interim relief only if satisfied that withholding of it would prick the conscience of the court and do violence to the sense of justice, resulting in injustice being perpetuated throughout the hearing, and at the end the court would not be able to vindicate the cause of justice."
Case Title: Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. v. National Hydro Electric Power Corporation Ltd.
Case Number : EX.APPL.(OS) 1025/2024 in OMP (ENF.) (COMM.) 87/2018
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 780
The Delhi High Court on 28 July held that interim payments released under NITI Aayog's relief scheme for construction contractors during the pendency of challenges to arbitral awards cannot alter the legal method of adjusting payments once the award attains finality.
Justice Subramonium Prasad directed National Hydro Electric Power Corporation Ltd. (NHPC) to pay Rs. 16.39 crore to Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. (HCC) after adjusting the amounts already paid under the scheme, holding that such payments could not be treated as an agreement between the parties to depart from the law governing adjustment of award amounts. He observed:
“Once the Award has attained finality then the amount under the Award has to be paid in accordance with the law laid down by the Apex Court in Leela Hotels Ltd. (supra) in execution proceedings after adjusting the amounts already received under the OMs. It cannot be said that any correspondence made regarding OMs issued by NITI Aayog would result in any agreement to the contrary as alleged by the Judgment Debtor.”
Delhi High Court Holds Future O&M Claims Beyond Scope, Partly Quashes Louis Berger-COWI JV Award
Case Title : National Highways Authority of India v. The Louis Berger Group Inc. JV with M/s COWI A/S
Case Number: O.M.P. (COMM) 351/2023 and I.A. 17160/2023
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 779
The Delhi High Court on Monday, 3 August, held that an arbitral tribunal cannot award operation and maintenance charges for services that had not fallen due on the date of the award.
Justice Avneesh Jhingan partly allowed the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI)'s petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and partly set aside an award granting Rs. 5.16 crore and USD 60,769 with interest to The Louis Berger Group Inc.-COWI A/S joint venture. He held:
“Relief cannot be granted on an apprehension and for services yet to be rendered for which no amount was due on the date of passing of the award. The award to that extent travels beyond the scope of submission to arbitration and falls within the ambit of Section 34(2)(a)(iv) of the Act.”
Deposit Made To Stay Arbitral Award Is Security, Not Payment To Award-Holder: Delhi High Court
Case Title : McNally Bharat Engineering Company Limited v. Metso India Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number: O.M.P. (COMM) 362/2018
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 777
The Delhi High Court has held that depositing money in court as a condition for staying an arbitral award does not alter ownership of the amount.
It ruled that such a deposit remains only a form of security and creates no unconditional right in favour of the decree holder.
A single bench of Justice Avneesh Jhingan observed that the decree holder acquires no vested right over the money merely because it has been deposited in court.
"There is no vested right created in favour of the decree holder for unconditional receipt of the amount deposited in the court. The deposit continues to remain in the form of security," the court ruled.
Allahabad High Court
Arbitrators Can Decide Contractual Tax Disputes, Not Statutory Tax Issues: Allahabad High Court
Case Title : U.P. Public Works Department, through Chief Engineer, Central Zone, Lucknow v. M/s Vriddhi Infratech India Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : Arbitration Appeal No. 35 of 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (ALL) 61
The Allahabad High Court at Lucknow has recently held that tax disputes between contracting parties, where a party must bear or reimburse a tax, may be resolved through arbitration. However, questions involving statutory tax rates, classification, assessment or quantification remain within the exclusive domain of tax authorities.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Jaspreet Singh partly set aside the GST-related portions of an arbitral award granting over ₹11.35 crore to a road contractor while preserving the finding that the contract was an item-rate contract and the award of ₹66,500 towards the Department's share of the dispute review expert's fee.
The court held that the arbitrator wrongly applied a Ministry of Road Transport and Highways Standard Operating Procedure concerning GST impact on EPC contracts to an item-rate contract, without any contractual provision or evidence making it applicable.
Explaining the limits of an arbitrator's jurisdiction over tax-related disputes, the bench observed:
“The Arbitrator is a creature of contract and its jurisdiction to decide the dispute may be co-extensive with the contract but if it requires any determination relating to tax rates or classification of goods under any particular entry of the taxing statute or the quantum of any tax liability or the adjudication requires referencing to any Executive Tax Notification and Statutory Tax Rates Schedules, then such disputes even though arising out of a contract ceases to be contractual in nature and it metamorphosis into a fiscal regulatory issue. Such issues are governed by the taxing statute which are a complete code in themselves and cannot be subjected to determination by a private forum such as an Arbitral Tribunal.”
State Gets No Special Leeway In Delay Condonation Under Arbitration Act: Allahabad High Court
Case Title : Union of India, Ministry of Railways, Thru. Divisional Railway Manager/Engineer, and 5 Others v. Gallant Ispat Ltd. Thru. General Manager Navneet Jindal
Case Number : APPEAL UNDER SECTION 37 OF ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996 No. - 25 of 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (ALL) 60
The Allahabad High Court on 30 July held that government bodies are not entitled to any special concession under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and that the State and private parties are subject to the same standard for proving “sufficient cause.”
A Division Bench of Justices Rajan Roy and Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary dismissed an appeal filed by the railway authorities against the Commercial Court's refusal to condone a 28 day delay in filing objections to an arbitral award. The judges held:
“Different yard-sticks cannot be employed for a government entity and a private body for deciding an application for condonation of delay. The law of limitation applies in equal force to both the litigating parties. Whether it is a government body or a private, the parties have to show existence of 'sufficient cause' in their favour, before the discretionary power of the court could be triggered for condoning the delay. The said understanding of this court gathers specific significance in the wake of section 18 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, which mandates for equal treatment of the parties.”
Kerala High Court
Can An Arbitrator Appoint An Advocate Commissioner To Collect Evidence? Kerala High Court Says No
Case Title : DLF Southern Towns Pvt Ltd v. Aditya Deo and Anr
Case Number : OP(C) No. 815 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(KER) 155
The Kerala High Court has ruled that an arbitral tribunal cannot appoint an Advocate Commissioner to collect evidence by invoking its power to grant interim measures under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Justice Easwaran S observed that Section 17 cannot be used to circumvent the limits imposed by Sections 26 and 27 of the Act. "Merely because Section 17 provides power to the arbitrator to grant interim relief, he cannot bypass the prohibition under Section 26 and grant such relief in exercise of the power under Section 17. Thus, the power under Section 17 of the Act to grant interim relief is subject to the exceptions specified under Section 26. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the arbitrator does not have any power to appoint an advocate commissioner except to appoint person(s) to solicit expert opinion," the court observed.
Jammu & Kashmir And Ladakh High Court
J&K And Ladakh HC Holds Past Arbitration No Bar In Refund Claim, Directs SKUAST-J To Release Deposit
Case Title : M/S Construction Engineer v. Sher-e-Kashmir University of Agricultural Sciences & Technology, Jammu & Ors.
Case Number : WP (C) No. 168/2023
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(JAM) 24
On 3 August, the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court held that a contractor's claim for refund of earnest money and performance security cannot be rejected merely because it was not raised in earlier arbitration proceedings over delayed payments.
A Bench of Justice Sanjay Parihar directed Sher-e-Kashmir University of Agricultural Sciences and Technology, Jammu to refund Rs. 29 lakh deposited by Construction Engineer for a boys' hostel project and held that the refund claim was not barred merely because it was not raised in earlier arbitration proceedings. He observed:
“Once the contract had been fully performed and the respondents had accepted the completion of the work without alleging any breach or deficiency, the petitioner's reference to arbitration was confined solely to his claim for interest on delayed payment of the admitted contractual dues. The petitioner had no occasion to seek refund of the earnest money and performance security before the Arbitrator, particularly when the respondents themselves had consistently maintained that no dispute existed which was capable of being referred to arbitration. Having adopted such a stand, the respondents cannot now be permitted to contend that the petitioner ought to have included the relief of refund of the security deposits in the arbitral proceedings.”