LiveLawBiz Arbitration Cases Weekly Digest : February 16 - February 22, 2026
Nominal Index
Asad Mueed & Ors. vs Jamia Hamdard Deemed to Be University, 2026 LLBiz SC 65
Talwandi Sabo Power Ltd vs Punjab State Power Corporation, 2026 LLBiz SC 72
R. Savithri Naidu v. The Cotton Corporation of India Ltd. & Anr., 2026 LLBiz SC 66
Aspek Media Pvt Ltd & Ors. vs Entertainment City Ltd, 2026 LLBiz SC 68
Rashtriya Chemicals & Fertilisers Ltd vs Thermax Ltd, 2026 LLBiz SC 70
Ansal Housing Limited v. SS Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 168
Parsvnath Developers Limited & Ors. v. Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 171
M/s Annai Builders Real Estate Pvt Ltd v. G.B. Sarath Kumar, 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 51
Volleyball Federation of India v. Baseline Ventures (India) Pvt. Ltd, 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 50
Sivashankar & Co. vs The Divisional Railway Manager, 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 48
M/s Bhagyalakshmi Homes LLP v. Sulekha Verma and Ors, 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 21
Mobisy Technologies Pvt Ltd v. M/s J G Hosiery Pvt Ltd, 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 20
Aditya Birla Fashion and Retail Limited v. Dayanand, 2026 LLBiz HC (PNH) 9
State of Maharashtra vs Morya Infrastructure Pvt Ltd Beed, 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 86
Dealmoney Commodities Pvt. Ltd. v. Vijay Vithal Sawant & Anr., 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 81
A. Navinchandra Steel Private Limited & Ors. v. Board of Directors of Abhyudaya Co-Op. Bank Ltd. & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 79
Alok Saraf & Ors. vs Shyam Sundar Nangalia & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 54
India Media Services Private Limited v. SBPL Infrastructure Limited, 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 53
Union of India v. M/s K.K. Enterprises Contractors, 2026 LLBiz HC (JAM) 3
Ankit Enterprises vs. M/S Shri Ram Sunil Kumar & Anr., 2026 LLBiz HC (PAT) 5
Supreme Court
Case Title : Asad Mueed & Ors. vs Jamia Hamdard Deemed to Be University
Case Number : PETITION(S) FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (C) NO(S).3280/2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz SC 65
The Supreme Court deemed the Consent of Affiliation to have been granted by Jamia Hamdard Deemed to be University to Hamdard Institute of Medical Sciences & Research (HIMSR), after noting that 49 postgraduate students had already been admitted pursuant to its earlier interim directions.
A Bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan said the consent would be treated as granted, subject to the final outcome of the Special Leave Petition.
“In the circumstances, we observe that since there has been admission of as many as forty nine students in the third petitioner-College, the consent of affiliation is deemed to have been granted by the first respondent University in favour of the third respondent-University subject to the result of this Special Leave Petition.”, the court said.
On appeal, the high court observed that an executing court cannot travel beyond the arbitral mandate or adjudicate complex regulatory issues reserved for statutory authorities. It held that compliance must be subject to applicable statutory regimes and that enforcement cannot override decisions of competent regulatory bodies.
Case Title : Talwandi Sabo Power Ltd vs Punjab State Power Corporation
Case Number : Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 6462/2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz SC 72
The Supreme Court has recently refused to interfere with a Punjab and Haryana High Court decision dismissing a writ petition filed by Vedanta Group company Talwandi Sabo Power Ltd against an arbitral tribunal's order that held part of its claim fell outside the scope of arbitration in its dispute with Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd (PSPCL). A bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and K. Vinod Chandran dismissed the special leave petition.
The Court said, “The special leave petition is, accordingly, dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioner, Talwandi Sabo Power Ltd., to take recourse to the remedy referred to in paragraph-13 of the impugned judgment/order in accordance with law.”
It held that an effective statutory remedy was available and that writ jurisdiction cannot ordinarily be invoked in such circumstances. The High Court imposed costs of Rs 50 thousand on the company and directed that the amount be deposited with the High Court Legal Services Committee within three months.
Case Title : R. Savithri Naidu v. The Cotton Corporation of India Ltd. & Anr.
Case Number : Civil Appeal No. 1602/2026 [Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 19779 of 2024]
Citation : 2026 LLBiz SC 66
The Supreme Court has reaffirmed that a person who purchases disputed property after the passing of an arbitral award cannot obstruct its attachment in execution proceedings. A Bench of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti warned that permitting such objections would derail the execution process, causing proceedings to get trapped “in an infinite loop and practically never get completed,” and reducing decrees to mere “paper tigers.”
The court emphasised its ruling in Jini Dhanrajgir v. Shibu Mathew (2023), that "winning a case is meaningless unless the winner actually gets the relief they sought,” and stressed that the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure “must be employed to secure actual relief, not just a formal decree.” Rejecting the appeal, the Court held that for the purposes of Order XXI Rule 102 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the relevant date is the institution of the proceedings and not merely the pendency of a challenge to the award.
Case Title : Aspek Media Pvt Ltd & Ors. vs Entertainment City Ltd
Case Number : SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No. 3190/2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz SC 68
The Supreme Court dismissed a special leave petition filed by Aspek Media Pvt. Ltd. and others against Entertainment City Limited, declining to interfere with a Delhi High Court order in an arbitration matter.
A Bench of Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Atul S. Chandurkar said: “After hearing learned counsel, we see no reason and ground to interfere with the order impugned. Accordingly, the special leave petition is dismissed.”
Justice Jasmeet Singh held that there were “clear findings of diversion of funds” by the directors and distinguished earlier precedents relied upon by the judgment debtor.
The Court allowed the application, directed the impleadment of Harish Choudhary and Dharamvir Choudhary, Directors of Aspek Media Pvt. Ltd., and ordered them to file affidavits of assets from financial year 2014-15 onwards in terms of Order XXI Rule 41(2) CPC.
Case Title : Rashtriya Chemicals & Fertilisers Ltd vs Thermax Ltd
Case Number : Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 6365/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz SC 70
The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed a special leave petition filed by Rashtriya Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd (RCF) challenging a Bombay High Court order that refused to allow it to retain Rs. 218.45 crore deposited by Thermax Ltd after an arbitral award in its favour was set aside. A bench of Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Alok Aradhe declined to interfere with the January 28, 2026 order of the High Court's division bench.
The Court observed, “While we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the High Court, we make it clear that the petitioner shall deposit the amount as directed, within four weeks from today.” With these observations, the special leave petition was dismissed.
The division bench had held that once the arbitral award dated June 5, 2023 was set aside, there was no arbitral award in existence and, therefore, RCF could not claim any right over the amount deposited as a condition for stay of the award.
High Courts
Delhi High Court
Jurisdiction Clause In Umbrella Agreement Prevails Over Later Contract: Delhi High Court
Case Title : Ansal Housing Limited v. SS Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd. & Anr with Connected Matter
Case Number : O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 43/2026 & 44/2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 168
The Delhi High Court has recently ruled that when an umbrella agreement fixes a venue in one city but expressly confers jurisdiction on courts in another, the jurisdiction clause will prevail unless the parties clearly alter the juridical seat for the entire transaction.
Dismissing two petitions filed by Ansal Housing Limited seeking interim relief under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar ruled that courts at Meerut, and not Delhi, had territorial jurisdiction.
Explaining the principle, the Court observed, “Where the umbrella agreement consciously designates a venue in one city and subjects itself to the jurisdiction of courts in another, the latter cannot be eclipsed absent a clear and unequivocal stipulation altering the juridical seat for the entire transaction"
No Concluded Contract, No Interim Relief: Delhi High Court Dismisses Developer's Plea Against ARCIL
Case Title : Parsvnath Developers Limited & Ors. v. Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited & Ors.
Case Number : O.M.P. (I) (COMM) 330/2025 & O.M.P. (I) (COMM) 367/2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 171
The Delhi High Court has dismissed Parsvnath Developers' plea seeking enforcement of an alleged Rs. 750 crore restructuring agreement against Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited, holding that courts cannot compel parties to honour a settlement that never matured into a concluded contract.
Justice Jasmeet Singh held that the draft restructuring agreement remained at a negotiatory stage. Although drafts were exchanged, essential terms were unsettled. The schedules were marked preliminary and subject to internal approval. Several material particulars were left blank.
In these circumstances, the court held, “In the absence of a concluded agreement, the foundational basis for the reliefs sought in the present petition collapses"
Madras High Court
Madras High Court Quashes ₹1.10 Crore Award Against Annai Builders For "Unintelligible" Findings
Case Title : M/s Annai Builders Real Estate Pvt Ltd v. G.B. Sarath Kumar
Case Number : Arb O.P (Com. Div.) No. 62 of 2021; EP SR No. 123007 of 2023
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 51
The Madras High Court on 17 February set aside a Rs. 1.10 crore arbitral award passed against Annai Builders Real Estate Pvt. Ltd., holding that the arbitrator's findings were unintelligible as two disputed running bills were allowed without examining objections of duplicate claims and excess payment, and by ignoring a detailed 242-page expert report assessing actual construction progress.
A Single Bench of Justice N. Anand Venkatesh held that the award suffered from perversity and patent illegality and set it aside in entirety. The Court observed:
“on an overall reading of the award passed by the Sole Arbitrator, this Court finds that the findings rendered for the main issues are unintelligible and it was given in complete disregard to the evidence available on record and the findings are also mutually contradictory. Hence, this Court is inclined to interfere with the entire award on the ground of perversity and patent illegality”.
Case Title : Volleyball Federation of India v. Baseline Ventures (India) Pvt. Ltd
Case Number : Arb.O.P. (Com.Div.) No. 175 of 2021
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 50
The Madras High Court refused to interfere with an arbitral award directing the Volleyball Federation of India to pay Rs.4 crore as loss of profits to Baseline Ventures, the former promoter of the Pro Volleyball League, holding that the federation's termination of the 2018 agreement was unjustified.
Justice N. Anand Venkatesh held that the award dated November 21, 2020 “does not suffer from any perversity or patent illegality warranting the interference of this Court."
Having found the termination unlawful, the arbitrator had awarded Rs.4 crore towards loss of profits. The Court endorsed the approach adopted for quantifying damages, reiterating that arbitrators are permitted “to employ an honest guesswork and a rough and ready method for quantifying the damages."
Case Title : Sivashankar & Co. vs The Divisional Railway Manager
Case Number : Arb.OP (Com.Div).No.630 of 2022
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 48
Holding that a contract that has already expired cannot thereafter be terminated, the Madras High Court has partly set aside an arbitral award that upheld Southern Railway's termination of a works contract and the consequent forfeiture of deposits.
“The very process of termination presupposes that there is a subsisting contract. If there is no subsisting contract, there is nothing to be terminated thereafter,” Justice N. Anand Venkatesh observed while partly allowing a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act filed by Sivashankar & Co.
“The petitioner could not have challenged the termination of contract under Section 9 of the Act since if the petitioner has sought for injuncting the respondent from terminating, it would have been rejected under Section 14 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 since it is capable of being compensated in terms of money,” the court further observed.
Karnataka High Court
Right To Seek Arbitration Ends Once Written Statement Stage Is Closed: Karnataka High Court
Case Title : M/s Bhagyalakshmi Homes LLP v. Sulekha Verma and Ors
Case Number : Commercial Appeal No.618 of 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 21
The Karnataka High Court has reiterated that a defendant cannot seek reference to arbitration under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 after its right to file a written statement in a commercial suit has been closed, dismissing an appeal filed by real estate developer Bhagyalakshmi Homes LLP.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C.M. Poonacha upheld the Commercial Court's order rejecting the developer's plea to refer the dispute to arbitration.
“It is clear from the plain language of Sub-section (1) of Section 8 of the A&C Act that an application under Section 8 can be made not later than the date of submitting his first statement on the substance of the dispute,” the Bench observed.
Referring to its earlier decision in SPML Infra Ltd. v. Trisquare Switchgears (P) Ltd. and the Supreme Court's ruling in SSCG Contracts (India) (P) Ltd. v. K.S. Chamankar Infrastructure (P) Ltd., the Bench reiterated that in commercial suits a written statement must be filed within 30 days of service of summons, extendable up to 120 days, beyond which the right stands forfeited.
Case Title : Mobisy Technologies Pvt Ltd v. M/s J G Hosiery Pvt Ltd
Case Number : CMP No. 311 of 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 20
The Karnataka High Court held that enterprises are not required in every case to move the Facilitation Council under Chapter V of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006, which provides a mechanism for referring delayed payment disputes to the Council.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj clarified that a contractual arbitration clause remains enforceable unless the statutory process under Section 18 is actually invoked.
“It cannot be said, as an absolute proposition, that micro, small or medium enterprises are required in every case to proceed only under Chapter V of the MSMED Act and to refer all disputes to the Facilitation Council under Section 18. The requirement arises only upon invocation of the statutory mechanism in the case of micro and small enterprises, and does not arise at all in the case of medium enterprises,” the Court observed.
The Court further held that Chapter V, titled “Delayed payments to micro and small enterprises,” applies only to micro and small enterprises. Referring to Section 2(n), which defines “supplier” as a micro or small enterprise, it held that the definition cannot be stretched to include medium enterprises. Medium enterprises are therefore outside the scope of Section 18.
Punjab and Haryana High Court
Punjab and Haryana High Court Sets Aside ₹5.18 Crore Arbitral Award Against Aditya Birla Fashion
Case Title : Aditya Birla Fashion and Retail Limited v. Dayanand
Case Number : FAO-CARB No. 39 of 2025 (O&M)
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (PNH) 9
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has set aside a Rs. 5.18 crore arbitral award passed in favour of landlord Dayanand and against Aditya Birla Fashion and Retail Limited in a dispute arising from a 2018 warehouse fire, holding that the award was contrary to the express terms of the lease deed and suffered from patent illegality.
“By awarding sum to compensate the losses arising from under valuation of the property, for the purposes of insurance, the Arbitrator has virtually re-written the contract, which is not permissible. This aspect has been completely omitted from consideration by the Arbitrator even though the appellant had specifically asserted that securing the leased-out premise against the incident of fire by way of insurance was the exclusive obligation of the claimant.” a Division Bench of Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Rohit Kapoor held.
The bench further noted that the damages awarded were not supported by proof of actual expenditure beyond what was assessed by the insurer. Reliance on valuation material and a Chartered Accountant's certificate was insufficient.
Bombay High Court
Case Title : State of Maharashtra vs Morya Infrastructure Pvt Ltd Beed
Case Number : COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION APPEAL NO. 01 OF 2023
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 86
The Bombay High Court at Aurangabad has dismissed the State of Maharashtra's challenge to an arbitral award of Rs. 596.60 lakhs, holding that objections to the constitution of the arbitral tribunal cannot be raised after filing of the written statement, counter-claim and commencement of evidence.
A Division Bench of Justices Arun R. Pedneker and Vaishali Patil-Jadhav on February 16, 2026, upheld the Commercial Court's May 6, 2022, order refusing to set aside the award dated February 11, 2018.
“In such circumstances, the objection raised at a belated stage, after filing of the written statement, counter-claim and after commencement of evidence, is clearly not in consonance with Section 16(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which mandates that a plea as to the lack of jurisdiction or improper constitution of the arbitral tribunal shall be raised not later than the submission of the statement of defence,” the court observed.
Case Title : Dealmoney Commodities Pvt. Ltd. v. Vijay Vithal Sawant & Anr.
Case Number : Commercial Arbitration Petition (L) Nos. 1665 & 1700 of 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 81
The Bombay High Court upheld an arbitral finding that Dealmoney Commodities Pvt Ltd executed “blatantly unauthorised” Futures and Options trades in the accounts of a retired couple, which resulted in the depletion of their investment portfolio, and restored compensation of over Rs. 33 lakh with 18 percent interest.
A Single Bench of Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh confirmed the investors' entitlement to Rs. 17,76,581 and Rs.15,32,073 respectively, with interest at 18 percent per annum from August 10, 2020, till payment, along with costs of Rs 25,000.
“The call transcripts precisely prove that the initiation of the trade was not by the Respondent but by the Petitioner's employee without any authorisation which renders the trades blatantly unauthorised. ,” the court observed.
Case Title : A. Navinchandra Steel Private Limited & Ors. v. Board of Directors of Abhyudaya Co-Op. Bank Ltd. & Ors.
Case Number : INTERIM APPLICATION (LODGING) NO.1785 OF 2026 [IN COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 742 of 2025]
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 79
The Bombay High Court has recently held that a multi-state co-operative bank can recover its loan dues through arbitration under Section 84 of the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002, which provides for statutory dispute resolution in matters concerning the business of such societies, and is not confined to approaching the Debt Recovery Tribunal under the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993.
Dismissing challenges to arbitral awards obtained by Abhyudaya Co-operative Bank Ltd, Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh ruled that there is no exclusive jurisdiction with the Tribunal under the RDB Act.
The Court said, “The statutory provision of RDB Act does not place an absolute embargo on the mechanism provided under the MSCS Act and on the contrary, admits of the right of a multi State co-operative society to initiate proceedings under MSCS Act to recover debts”.
Calcutta High Court
Case Title : Alok Saraf & Ors. vs Shyam Sundar Nangalia & Ors.
Case Number : APOT No.269 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 54
The Calcutta High Court on 18 February, held that an arbitral award holder is not left remediless after initiating enforcement proceedings and may seek interim protection under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act until the award is fully satisfied.
A Division Bench of Justices Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Supratim Bhattacharya was hearing an appeal filed by Alok Saraf and others against the EPI Group, challenging a single judge's order dated 10 September 2025, which had refused ad interim relief in their Section 9 application.
The Court observed: “Although Section 36 (2) of the 1996 Act itself contemplates stay of the award, the same operates only to the benefit of the award debtor, and is restricted to a stay of the award. However, neither Section 36 nor Section 34 of the 1996 Act provides any remedy similar to Section 9 to the award holder, in aid of and in order to facilitate the fruition of the award.”
Case Title : India Media Services Private Limited v. SBPL Infrastructure Limited
Case Number : APOT No. 1 of 2026 with IA No. GA 1 of 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 53
An executing court does not become functus officio merely because it “allows” an execution petition, the Calcutta High Court has held, clarifying that jurisdiction continues until the arbitral award is fully implemented and satisfied.
Dismissing an appeal filed by India Media Services Pvt Ltd, a Division Bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Justice Supratim Bhattacharya said that allowing the execution case was “merely nominal, contemplating further steps to be taken” and that “it cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that the executing court became functus officio.”
The Division Bench held that an award for specific performance remains executory until the deed is finalised, executed, and registered. “Unless an award is satisfied, it cannot be said that the execution is complete,” the Court observed.
Jammu & Kashmir & Ladakh High Court
Case Title : Union of India v. M/s K.K. Enterprises Contractors
Case Number : AA No. 07/2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (JAM) 3
The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh has dismissed an appeal filed by the Union of India challenging an arbitral award that granted 12 percent post-award interest, holding that the statutory 18 percent rate under the unamended law applies only where the award is silent.
A Division Bench of Justice Rajnesh Oswal and Justice Rahul Bharti dismissed an appeal filed by the Union of India challenging and award including the grant of 12 percent future interest in favour of K.K. Enterprises Contractors.
The Court examined Section 31(7)(b) of the 1997 Act as it stood prior to amendment. The provision states that a sum directed to be paid by an arbitral award shall carry interest at 18 percent per annum from the date of the award until payment, unless the award otherwise directs. Since the arbitrator had expressly granted 12 percent interest, the statutory default of 18 percent did not apply.
The Court said, "The learned Arbitrator exercised his discretion to grant future interest at the rate of 12% per annum. We find no illegality in this determination.”
Patna High Court
Case Title : Ankit Enterprises vs. M/S Shri Ram Sunil Kumar & Anr.
Case Number : Civil Revision No. 6 of 2023
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(PAT) 5
The Patna High Court has reaffirmed that a civil revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure does not lie against such an order passed under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 where the statute provides a specific appellate remedy.
The Court held that the Arbitration Act is a self-contained code and that Section 37 exhausts the appellate remedies.
Justice Ramesh Chand Malviya observed, “It is settled principles of law that the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 being a self-contained code, no revision under Section 115 CPC lies against such an order. Section 37 exhausts the appellate remedies and permitting a revision would amount to judicial interference not contemplated by the Act.” It relied on Supreme Court precedents emphasising that the Arbitration Act is a special and exhaustive legislation intended to ensure speedy dispute resolution, and therefore judicial intervention must remain strictly within the limited framework provided under the Act.