Nominal Index
Atlanta Infra Assets Limited v. NHAI, 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 622.
M/s Profile India International v. M/s SS Brothers Associates & Anr., 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 616.
Orange Orbit LLP v. HostBooks Limited & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 617.
National Highways Authority of India v. Progressive Constructions Limited, 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 625.
Chander Mohan Lall v. DLF Home Developers Limited, 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 626.
K. Prem Kumar v. Escape Artists Motion Pictures & Ors. and K. Punniyamoorthy v. Escape Artists Motion Pictures & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 148.
M/s Maavadi Soft Tech Ventures (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. M/s Anir Tech Park Private Limited, 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 145.
Clasic Farms (Chennai) Limited v. N. Venkatasubbu & Another, 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 150.
National Highways Authority of India v. District Collector, Tiruppur & Ors. (Batch Matters), 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 152.
ETA General Private Limited v. Fujitsu General (Thailand) Company Limited, 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 143.
Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited v. Swiber Offshore Construction Pte. Limited, 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 327
Apurvakriti Infrastructure Private Limited v. Tata Projects Limited & Anr., 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 341.
Eicher Motors Limited v. Ashutosh Ranjit Majumdar, 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 347.
M/s Traveira Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s Toto Toya Spin Pvt. Ltd., 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 346.
Wadhwa Estates and Developers (India) Private Limited v. Moon Craft Apartments Co-operative Housing Society Limited & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 345.
ABB India Limited v. Sunil Hariram Jaisingh & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 328.
Public Works Department, Government of Maharashtra National Highways v. Khare and Tarkunde Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 330.
The Capturing Factory (Division of Israni Entertainment India Limited) v. Ullu Digital Limited & Another, 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 333.
Arch Construction Co. v. Union of India, 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 348.
Ashish and Others v. National Highway Authority of India, 2026 LLBiz HC (MP) 45
M/s Natural Petroleum v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited, 2026 LLBiz HC (MP) 42.
M/s Lite Bite Foods Pvt. Ltd. v. Airport Authority of India, 2026 LLBiz HC (MP) 44
Gopal Enterprises (Partnership Firm) v. The Northern Coalfields Limited (A Miniratna Company and Subsidiary of Coal India Limited), 2026 LLBiz HC (MP) 46.
National Centre for Biological Sciences v. URC Constructions Private Limited & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 90.
Yumiko Global Infra Tech Pvt. Ltd. v. PRL Gepong JV, 2026 LLBiz HC (GAU) 16.
Techno Steel and Craft Industries & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC(GAU) 17
Kanchan Konwer & Anr. v. Tushar Kanti Jana, 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 152.
Trident Chemphar Limited v. Minas De Benga & Another, 2026 LLBiz HC (TEL) 36.
J. Srisailam Reddy & Another v. K. Srisailam & Others, 2026 LLBiz HC (TEL) 37.
Rihim Developers Private Limited v. Ramana Rao, 2026 LLBiz HC (TEL) 38.
Hashim v. Union of India & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC (KER) 103.
High Courts
Delhi High Court
Partial Settlement On Interest In Arbitration Not Binding On All Claims: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Atlanta Infra Assets Limited v NHAI
Case Number : O.M.P. (COMM) 152/2022, O.M.P. (COMM) 243/2022
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 622
The Delhi High Court on 26 May held that a partial settlement reached during arbitral proceedings fixing interest for specific claims cannot bind all pending claims and counter-claims, and the Arbitral Tribunal retains full discretion under Section 31(7)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
A Bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh dismissed cross petitions under Section 34 of the Act arising from a dispute between Atlanta Infra Assets Ltd. and the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI), and upheld the arbitral award. It observed:
“As regards the argument of Atlanta for applying separate rates of interest on claims and counterclaims is concerned, the said argument is misconceived. On 24.02.2020, the parties agreed to the rates of interest for Counter Claim Nos. 2 and 6 only, the same is not an agreement of parties qua the binding rate of interest for all claims and counter claims. Hence, the AT was very much within its discretion to award interest at the rate of 10%”.
Delhi High Court Restrains Ex-Franchisee From Using Toni & Guy Brand Pending Arbitration
Case Title : M/s Profile India International v. M/s SS Brothers Associates & Anr.
Case Number: O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 224/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 616
On 26 May, the Delhi High Court granted interim protection under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and restrained a former franchisee from using the “Toni & Guy” trademarks and associated intellectual property pending arbitration.
Justice Mini Pushkarna held that a valid arbitration agreement governed the dispute and protected the franchisor's brand rights during the pendency of proceedings and allowed the petition filed by Profile India International. The Bench observed:
“Considering the submissions made before this Court, till the next date of hearing, the respondents are restrained from operating any Salon bearing the mark 'Toni & Guy' or using the operating manual, system, 'Toni & Guy' Network, license rights or any other trade name, logos, devices or insignia, associated with the petitioner's mark, or from using in any manner, any sign board, or stationary, bills, etc., with the brand name/trademark, i.e., 'Toni & Guy'.”
Delhi HC Grants Interim Protection To Orange Orbit LLP in Rs. 18.6 Cr. Dispute With HostBooks Ltd.
Case Title: Orange Orbit LLP v. HostBooks Limited & Ors.
Case Number: O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 227/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 617
The Delhi High Court recently granted interim protection to Orange Orbit LLP in its Rs. 18.6 crore investment dispute with HostBooks Limited in a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Justice Mini Pushkarna allowed the petition and restrained HostBooks and its founders (Respondent Nos. 2 and 3) from alienating or creating further encumbrances over its assets, business, software, intellectual property and securities pending arbitration till the next date of hearing on 7 October 2026. The Bench held:
“The respondents, whether by themselves, their directors, officers, agents, nominees, assigns or any person claiming through or under them, are restrained from selling, transferring, alienating, disposing of, parting with possession of, or creating any further encumbrance, charge, lien, security interest, pledge or third-party right over, the assets, undertaking, business, software and intellectual property of the respondent no. 1”
Case Title: National Highways Authority of India v. Progressive Constructions Limited
Case Number: FAO(OS)(COMM) 206/2023
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 625
The Delhi High Court on Thursday set aside an arbitral award granting ₹126.77 crore to a highway contractor towards costs and confiscated assets in an Assam road-widening project. The Court held that the arbitral tribunal failed to consider extension-of-time decisions that had rejected those claims.
A Division Bench of Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Vinod Kumar, however, upheld awards totalling ₹35.90 crore towards work executed under the contract and loss of profit.
The court allowed an appeal filed by the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) against an award in favour of Progressive Constructions Limited, which was engaged to widen the Bijni–West Bengal Border section of NH-31C in Assam.
Case Title : Chander Mohan Lall v. DLF Home Developers Limited
Case Number : FAO(OS)(COMM) 100/2019 & CM APPLN. 2389/2020
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 626
The Delhi High Court has recently dismissed a senior advocate's appeal seeking higher compensation for the delayed possession of four commercial office units purchased from DLF Home Developers Limited.
A Division Bench of Justices V. Kameswar Rao and Vinod Kumar upheld compensation at ₹25 per sq. ft. per month. The Court rejected the plea to enhance it to ₹200 per sq. ft. per month on the basis of alleged market rental rates.
"The interpretation given by the learned Arbitrator to Clause 11.4... has been accepted by the learned Single Judge. We do not find the interpretation given by the learned Arbitrator to be unreasonable or perverse for us to interfere in this appeal," the bench ruled.
Madras High Court
Case Title: K. Prem Kumar v. Escape Artists Motion Pictures & Ors. and K. Punniyamoorthy v. Escape Artists Motion Pictures & Ors.
Case Number : OSA(CAD) Nos. 62 & 63 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 148
The Madras High Court has recently upheld an order permitting the release of filmmaker Gautham Vasudev Menon's long-delayed Tamil spy thriller 'Dhruva Natchathiram'.
The court held that a judicially supervised mechanism governing the film's revenues strikes a workable balance between enabling its release and protecting competing claims over its proceeds.
A Division Bench of Justices P. Velmurugan and K. Govindarajan Thilakavadi dismissed appeals filed by film financiers K. Prem Kumar and K. Punniyamoorthy.
The appeals challenged an April 30 order of a single judge that allowed the release of the Vikram- starrer movie subject to safeguards. Those safeguards included routing all receipts and disbursements through a dedicated bank account overseen by court-appointed observers.
"Having regard to the nature of the arrangement made by the learned Single Judge, we are of the considered view that the impugned order ensures a workable balance between facilitating the release of the film and ensuring that the receipt and utilisation of its revenues remain subject to judicial supervision," the bench observed.
"We do not find the exercise of discretion by the learned Single Judge to be arbitrary, perverse, or suffering from any patent illegality warranting interference in appellate jurisdiction," it added.
High Court Cannot Review Section 11 Arbitrator Appointment After Becoming Functus Officio: Madras HC
Case Title: M/s Maavadi Soft Tech Ventures (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. M/s Anir Tech Park Private Limited
Case Number: Rev.APLO Nos. 14 to 16 of 2026 in Arb.O.P. (Com. Div.) Nos. 75 to 77 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 145
The Madras High Court on 8 June held that once it appoints an arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, it becomes functus officio and cannot later review or invalidate that appointment because the Act does not confer such power.
Justice Abdul Quddhose dismissed review applications filed by Maavadi Soft Tech Ventures (India) Pvt. Ltd., True Value Homes India Private Limited and N. Ravichandran against Anir Tech Park Private Limited, refusing to revisit the Court's 22 April 2025 order appointing former Orissa High Court Chief Justice Dr. Justice S. Muralidhar as the sole arbitrator. He observed:
"The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has not granted the High Court the power to review its order passed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act appointing an Arbitrator. The High Court appointing the Arbitrator under Section 11 of the Act also becomes 'Functus officio' on the appointment of the arbitrator and the said appointment cannot be invalidated by the same Court which passed the order."
Case Title Clasic Farms (Chennai) Limited v. N. Venkatasubbu & Another
Case Number LPA No. 1 of 2022
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 150
The Madras High Court has dismissed an appeal against the closure of a contempt petition alleging that a property was sold in violation of an interim injunction obtained under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
A division bench of Justices Anita Sumanth and Sunder Mohan noted that while arbitral proceedings had continued until 2018, the appellant had taken no steps thereafter to revive them. In those circumstances, the Bench found no reason to interfere with the order closing the contempt petition.
"Having not chosen to pursue the arbitration, and literally abandoning the same, we are of the considered view that nothing would be gained by his continuing interest in the contempt petition alone. The effect of any order passed in the contempt petition would only be to punish the contemnors," the bench observed.
Case Title : National Highways Authority of India v. District Collector, Tiruppur & Ors. (Batch Matters)
Case Number : Arb. Appeal Nos. 18 of 2026 and connected matters
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 152
The Madras High Court has recently set aside a Tiruppur district court's direction granting landowners an additional 12% compensation in a batch of land acquisition disputes arising from the six-laning of the Chengapalli-Walayar stretch of National Highway-47.
A Division Bench of Justices P. Velmurugan and K. Govindarajan Thilakavadi held that landowners are entitled to solatium and interest in acquisitions under the National Highways Act. However, they cannot claim the additional 12% amount under Section 23(1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
The bench noted that the Supreme Court in National Highways Authority of India v. Tehal Singh had clarified that Section 23(1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act does not apply to acquisitions under the National Highways Act.
"The Hon'ble Apex Court clarifications affirmed that Section 23(1-A) (the Additional 12% amount for the period from the notification to the Award) does not apply to acquisitions undertaken under the National Highways Act. Therefore, 12% additional compensation awarded under Section 23(1-A) granted by the learned District Judge under NHAI proceedings is unsustainable," the court observed.
Arbitration Plea Must Be Filed Before Leave-to-Defend Application In Summary Suit: Madras High Court
Case Title : ETA General Private Limited v. Fujitsu General (Thailand) Company Limited
Case Number : O.S.A. (CAD) No. 1 of 2024 and C.M.P. Nos. 167, 168 & 10897 of 2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 143
The Madras High Court has recently held that a defendant in a summary suit cannot seek reference of the dispute to arbitration after first filing an application for leave to defend, ruling that such an application constitutes the first statement on the substance of the dispute.
A Division Bench of Justices P. Velmurugan and K. Govindarajan Thilakavadi rendered the ruling while dismissing an appeal filed by ETA General Private Limited against an order refusing to refer a USD 19 million recovery dispute with Fujitsu General (Thailand) Company Limited to arbitration.
The bench observed, “Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act clearly says that before submitting the first statement, the party has to invoke Section 8 and file the application for referring the matter to arbitration. As stated already, Order XXXVII of the Code is a procedural law and only general in nature. Whereas Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is a special law which prevails over the general law and therefore, it cannot be stated that in the suit filed under Order XXXVII, the defendant has to first file the application for leave to defend and thereafter can file the application under Section 8. Therefore, we are of the view that the application filed for leave to defend in summary suit itself is the first statement.”
Bombay High Court
Case Title : Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited v. Swiber Offshore Construction Pte. Limited
Case Number : Commercial Arbitration Petition (L) No. 17832 of 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 327
The Bombay High Court recently reiterated that interim protection in arbitration matters is not meant to extend rights beyond what parties have agreed between themselves.
The court made the observation while refusing Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd.'s request to continue a USD 14.82 million bank guarantee furnished by Swiber Offshore Construction Pte. Ltd. The request came after an arbitral tribunal rejected ONGC's liquidated damages claim and directed return of the security.
A single-judge bench of Justice Amit Borkar held that ONGC had failed to establish the existence of such exceptional and compelling circumstances as would justify post-award interim protection.
The Court observed,"The object of Section 9 is to preserve existing securities so that the subject matter of the dispute remains protected pending adjudication. It is not intended to extend existing rights beyond limits agreed upon by the parties."
Case Title: Apurvakriti Infrastructure Private Limited vs Tata Projects Limited and Anr
Case Number : COMM. ARBITRATION APPLICATION NO. 23 OF 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 341
On 17 June, the Bombay High Court held that an arbitration clause contained in a principal contract cannot be imported into a subcontract unless the subcontract specifically incorporates the arbitration clause itself.
Justice Arun R. Pedneker dismissed a Commercial Arbitration Application filed by Apurvakriti Infrastructure under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act against Tata Projects Ltd, holding that no arbitration agreement existed between the parties in relation to a Rs. 58.27 crore subcontract for ballastless track work in the Navi Mumbai Metro Rail Project. He held:
“Considering the judgements as noted above in M. R. Engineers And Contractors Private Limited (supra), NBCC (India) Limited (supra) and Hirani Developers (supra) and Inox Wind Limited (supra) and also considering the tender document, this Court holds that Clause 31 of the General Conditions of Contract signed between the Respondent No.1 and CIDCO is not incorporated in the Tender-cum-Work Order dated 2 March, 2015 executed between the Respondent No.1 and the Applicant. In absence of arbitration agreement between the parties, it would not be possible for this Court to refer the disputes to arbitration.”
Case Title: Eicher Motors Limited v Ashutosh Ranjit Majumdar
Case Number: COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION PETITION (L) NO. 21283 OF 202
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 347
The Bombay High Court on 8 June held that an arbitral award becomes patently illegal when the tribunal relies on material not disclosed to a party or taken from external sources without granting an opportunity to respond.
Justice Sharmila U Deshmukh while hearing a petition filed by Eicher Motors Ltd. (Eicher), set aside an award granting interest and costs in favour of Ashutosh Ranjit Majumdar after finding that the tribunal relied on undisclosed Yahoo Finance data while computing compensation. The Bench held:
“In the present case, after conclusion of hearing, the material was sourced by the Arbitral Tribunal itself without supplying a copy to the Petitioner and without granting any opportunity to the Petitioner. The computation based on such document would amount to patent illegality.”
Case Title : M/s Traveira Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd. v M/s Toto Toya Spin Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number: Arbitration Petition No. 21 of 2023
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 346
The Bombay High Court on 8 June held that an arbitral award passed by an arbitrator unilaterally appointed under an association's bye-laws, despite the absence of an arbitration agreement and where one party was not a member of the association, is contrary to Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the public policy of India.
Justice Gauri Godse allowed a petition filed by Traviera Silk Mills and set aside an arbitral award passed in favour of Toto Toya Spin under the Bombay Yarn Merchants Association and Exchange Limited bye-laws. She observed:
“Hence, in view of these facts, there is substance in the arguments raised on behalf of the petitioners that the impugned award is based on a unilateral constitution of the arbitral tribunal by the association by relying on the byelaws of the association to which the petitioners are admittedly not members. Hence, in absence of any arbitration agreement between the petitioners and respondent no.1 and in the absence of a valid constitution of the arbitral tribunal, the impugned award would not be sustainable as it is against the public policy of India.”
Dissenting Flat Owners Cannot Stall Redevelopment Project By Withholding Consent: Bombay High Court
Case Title : Wadhwa Estates and Developers (India) Private Limited v. Moon Craft Apartments Co-operative Housing Society Limited & Ors.
Case Number: Commercial Arbitration Petition (L) No. 13424 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 345
On 18 June, the Bombay High Court held that dissenting members of a co-operative housing society cannot stall an approved redevelopment project by refusing to execute consent declarations required under a redevelopment agreement, observing that the collective will of the society, and not the wishes of individual members, governs such projects.
Justice Amit Borkar granted interim relief to Wadhwa Estates and Developers (India) Pvt. Ltd. and directed the dissenting members of Moon Craft Apartments Co-operative Housing Society to furnish the requisite declarations, while also restrained them from creating third-party rights in their flats but declined to direct them to vacate the premises immediately or appoint a receiver to take possession. He held:
“Therefore, redevelopment cannot proceed on the basis of consent of every individual member in every case. The law recognises the reality that collective decisions must govern such matters. Otherwise, even a single member may prevent implementation of a project desired by the overwhelming majority."
Stock Exchange Bye-Laws Cannot Compel Arbitration Of Fraud Disputes: Bombay High Court
Case Title: ABB India Limited Versus Sunil Hariram Jaisingh And Ors
Case Number: COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION PETITION (L) NO. 32954 OF 2024
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 328
The Bombay High Court on 9 June held that although stock exchange bye-laws carry statutory force, they cannot compel arbitration of every shareholder dispute, particularly where serious allegations of fraud arise and the dispute falls outside the scope of arbitrability.
Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan allowed the challenge and quashed an arbitral award dated 6 August 2024, which had directed ABB India Ltd to restore 1,550 ABB shares and 310 Hitachi Energy India shares to shareholder Sunil Hariram Jaisingh or alternatively pay compensation equivalent to their market value. The Bench observed:
“The bye-laws of a stock exchange constitute subordinate law and are tabled in Parliament, having the force of statutory provisions. While such disputes of the nature set out in the aforesaid clause are made subject to arbitration, the law on arbitrability of disputes cannot be given a go-by. Indeed, every grievance raised by a shareholder cannot be said to be brought within the ambit of arbitration – for example, a grievance about accounting fraud by a listed company, made by a shareholder cannot be arbitrable. A shareholder who contends that a decision by the board of a listed company was taken negligently and that has resulted in losses for which damages are claimed, could arguably not be the intended beneficiary of the Master Circular.”
Arbitral Tribunals Must Respect Contract Terms While Ensuring Business Efficacy: Bombay High Court
Case Title : Public Works Department Got of Maharashtra National Highways Versus Khare And Tarkunde Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number: ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 262 OF 2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 330
The Bombay High Court on 12 June held that Section 28(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 does not permit arbitral tribunals to ignore contractual terms but requires them to interpret the contract in a manner that gives effect to business efficacy.
A Bench of Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan partly allowed petitions filed by the Maharashtra Public Works Department (PWD) and upheld the arbitral award dated 14 April 2023 in favour of Khare and Tarkunde Infrastructure Pvt Ltd (KTIPL) on damages, while setting aside the award of 18% compound interest. He held:
“I must hasten to add that Section 28(3) of the Act is not a license to ignore the terms of the contract at all, but it is a statutory recognition that when parties invest their trust in an Arbitral Tribunal to adjudicate their disputes, the Arbitral Tribunal would take into account the terms of the contract as opposed to the earlier position of adjudicating only “in accordance with” the contract. It is in extraordinary situations such as the matter at hand, that it is arguable that the scheme of the fine balance of reciprocal promises that the parties wove together may be required to be given business efficacy where it otherwise presents completely irrational and absurd consequences.”
Financial Hardship Alone Cannot Justify Payment Of Disputed Claim: Bombay High Court
Case Title : The Capturing Factory ( Division of Israni Entertainment India Limited V/s. Ullu Digital Limited & Another
Case Number: COMM ARBITRATION PETITION (L) NO.9509 OF 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 333
The Bombay High Court on Tuesday held that financial hardship by itself cannot justify directing payment of a disputed claim at an interim stage.
Refusing to order Ullu Digital Ltd. to secure or deposit about ₹2.58 crore claimed by the producer of the web series 'KINK 2', the Court observed that treating financial pressure as a sufficient reason for payment would blur the distinction between admitted and contested claims.
Justice Amit Borkar held that the material on record did not warrant interim relief. The Court also declined to restrain Ullu from continuing to stream and exploit KINK 2, observing that the parties would have to pursue their remedies before an arbitral tribunal.
“Merely because a party is facing financial pressure does not automatically mean that every disputed claim must immediately be treated as payable. If financial difficulty were accepted as sufficient reason for directing payment, the distinction between an admitted claim and a disputed claim would disappear. Courts dealing with applications at an interim stage are required to proceed on settled legal principles. Therefore, while the hardship alleged by the petitioner may be a relevant circumstance, it cannot by itself provide a sufficient basis for granting the relief sought.”, the court observed
Case Title : Arch Construction Co. Versus Union of India
Case Number : EXECUTION APPLICATION (L) NO. 39969 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 348
The Bombay High Court has held that, for the purpose of excluding a period while computing limitation, it is not necessary that the limitation period should have commenced or expired during the period sought to be excluded.
Observing that "the period excluded has to be simply excluded", the court ruled that the period excluded by the Supreme Court during the COVID-19 pandemic must be left out while calculating the limitation for the execution of an arbitral award.
Justice Abhay Ahuja made the observation while allowing an execution application filed by Arch Construction Co against the Union of India and directing the Registry to waive its objection on limitation and register the proceedings.
“Accordingly, under the Scheme of the Limitation Act for a period to be excluded for computation of limitation, it is not necessary that the period of limitation should have commenced or expired during the said period. The period excluded has to be simply excluded.It is only when fresh limitation has to commence for extending the limitation in situation such as acknowledgment of liability or payment of debt, that the said acts should have occurred before the expiry of the prescribed period of limitation and that there is no such requirement for excluding the period of limitation”, it ruled.
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Case Title: Ashish and Others v. National Highway Authority of India
Case Number : Arbitration Appeal No. 157 of 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (MP) 45
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that a party cannot seek exclusion of time spent before a wrong forum under the Limitation Act if it fails to explain why it did not challenge the arbitral award within the prescribed period
Justice Deepak Khot delivered the ruling while dismissing an appeal filed by Ashish and others against the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI). The Court upheld an order rejecting their challenge to an arbitral award as barred by limitation.
The court observed that a litigant seeking the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act must show that it pursued proceedings before the wrong forum with due diligence and in good faith.
"For the purpose of entertaining an application beyond statutory period applying the provision of section 14, the principle which is to be followed is that the person prosecuting or challenging the order or award, decree under the wrong advice, has chosen a wrong forum with due diligence and in good faith."
Final Termination Order Not Needed To Invoke Arbitration: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Case Title: M/s Natural Petroleum v Indian Oil Corporation Limited
Case Number: AC No. 150 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(MP) 42
The Madhya Pradesh High Court on 13 May held that a show cause notice proposing termination, coupled with a reply denying the allegations, constitutes a “dispute” sufficient to invoke arbitration, even in the absence of a final termination order.
Justice Pavan Kumar Dwivedi rejected Indian Oil Corporation Limited's (IOCL) objection that the petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was premature and appointed Justice (Retd.) Virender Singh as the sole Arbitrator. The Bench held:
“It was for the parties to decide the mode of dispute resolution at the time of execution of the agreement. The respondent agreed for the arbitration as a mode of resolution of dispute with open eyes and without qualifying it with any such condition that the concerned authority must first pass order and supply the same to the applicant in accordance with the guidelines and only thereafter arbitration may be resorted to. No such qualification exists in the arbitration agreement. Thus, the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that the present application for arbitration is premature is hereby rejected.”
Case Title : M/s Lite Bite Foods Pvt. Ltd. v Airport Authority of India
Case Number: MISC. PETITION No. 2470 of 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (MP) 44
The Madhya Pradesh High Court on 27 May held that courts cannot grant an unconditional stay on the execution of an arbitral money award unless the award is vitiated by fraud or corruption or the award debtor establishes an “exceptional case”.
A Division Bench of Justices Vivek Jain and Ajay Kumar Nirankari allowed the petition filed by Lite Bite Foods Pvt. Ltd., set aside the District Court's order granting an unconditional stay in favour of the Airports Authority of India (AAI), holding that a court cannot mechanically rely on Lifestyle Equities C.V. v. Amazon Technologies Inc. without first examining whether the case satisfies the legal threshold for granting such relief. The Bench observed:
“In the present case, the District Judge has applied Lifestyle (Supra) in the case of arbitration, but for that, it ought to have held the case to fall within the parameters of the test lid therein. However, it did not return any prima facie finding even as per Lifestyle (supra)… There is no finding in terms of para 138 of Lifestyle (supra) that whether the decree is perverse, whether it is riddled with patent illegalities, is facially untenable, or any other exceptional cause similar in nature.”
MP High Court Refers Gopal Enterprises-NCL Dispute To Arbitration Despite Use Of 'May' in Clause
Case Title: Gopal Enterprises (Partnership Firm) v. The Northern Coalfields Limited (A Miniratna Company and Subsidiary of Coal India Limited)
Case Number: ARBITRATION CASE No. 11 of 2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (MP) 46
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has referred a payment dispute between Gopal Enterprises and Northern Coalfields Limited (NCL) to arbitration.
It held that the use of the word "may" in the contract's dispute resolution clause did not dilute the parties' intention to resolve disputes through arbitration.
Justice Deepak Khot rejected NCL's objections and appointed Justice H.P. Singh, a former judge of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, as the sole arbitrator.
"The intention of the parties to enter into an arbitration agreement must be inferred from the terms of the agreement. Where the terms of an agreement clearly reveal the intention of the parties to submit their disputes to a private tribunal for resolution and to accept the decision of the tribunal as binding, the agreement constitutes an arbitration agreement," the court observed.
Karnataka High Court
Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Part Of Arbitral Award Over GST Computation On Non-Tendered Works
Case Title: NATIONAL CENTRE FOR BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES vs URC CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS
Case Number : COMMERCIAL APPEAL NO. 383 OF 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 90
The Karnataka High Court has partly set aside an arbitral award in a dispute between the National Centre for Biological Sciences (NCBS) and URC Constructions Pvt Ltd.
The court held that the arbitral tribunal ignored material evidence while concluding that the value of non-tendered items was ₹9.65 crore exclusive of GST.
A division bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C.M. Poonacha found that invoices and other records on the arbitral record showed that at least some GST was included in the ₹9.65 crore figure. The tribunal had failed to consider that material.
The bench held, “In view of the above, the impugned award, to the extent that it proceeds on the basis that the value of NT items exclusive of GST is `9,65,91,596/-, is set aside. The said conclusion ignores that the said amount is an aggregate of the amount included in the invoices and bills, and at least some of those invoices, which are on record, expressly include 18% GST. Failure to consider such relevant and vital evidence renders the impugned award vulnerable on the grounds of patent illegality.”
Gauhati High Court
Sub-Contract Dispute Clause Bars Import Of Arbitration Clause From Principal Contract: Gauhati HC
Case Title : Yumiko Global Infra Tech Pvt. Ltd. v. PRL Gepong JV
Case Number : Arb.P./1/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(GAU) 16
The Gauhati High Court on 3 June held that a sub-contract that contains its own specific dispute resolution clause cannot import the arbitration clause from the principal contract, even if it describes the principal contract as “part and parcel” of the sub-contract.
The Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Medhi dismissed a petition filed by Yumiko Global Infra Tech Private Limited (Yumiko) against PRL-Gepong JV (PRL) under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking appointment of an arbitrator in a contractual dispute arising from a sub-contract arrangement. He observed:
“As already mentioned above, the arbitration Clause contained in Clause 29 of the original agreement cannot have any application to the sub-contract, inasmuch as the sub-contract itself contains a specific clause for resolution of disputes namely Clause 5, which has been referred to hereinabove.”
Case Title: Techno Steel and Craft Industries & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number: Arb.P./16/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(GAU) 17
The Gauhati High Court has held that Noida was the juridical seat of arbitration in a dispute between Techno Steel and Craft Industries and the Inland Waterways Authority of India (IWAI), and therefore declined to appoint an arbitrator for want of territorial jurisdiction.
Justice Soumitra Saikia held that the parties had effectively agreed to Noida as the arbitral seat under the contract.
The court observed, “This Court will have to hold that in terms of the agreement, the parties have decided to agree that the 'arbitral seat' will be at 'Noida' in terms of Section 20(1),”
“Merely because of the use of the term 'venue' would not be sufficient to indicate that the 'arbitral seat' between the parties has not been fixed as decided at 'Noida' inasmuch as there are no contrary indications upon a plain reading of the agreement including the arbitration clause that the 'venue' is merely a 'place' or one of such place where arbitration proceeding will be conducted and therefore, not the 'juridical seat' of arbitration.”, It added.
Calcutta High Court
Case Title : KANCHAN KONWER AND ANR. VERSUS TUSHAR KANTI JANA
Case Number : AP 48 OF 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 152
On 18 June, the Calcutta High Court held that pecuniary jurisdiction alone cannot confer jurisdiction under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, in the absence of territorial jurisdiction, reiterating that both conditions must coexist for a court to entertain a challenge to an arbitral award.
Justice Gaurang Kanth dismissed a petition filed by Kanchan Konwer and another, the widow and son of late Tapan Konwer, who challenged an arbitral award passed in favour of developer Tushar Kanti Jana, holding that the Original Side of the Calcutta High Court lacked territorial jurisdiction to hear the Section 34 petition. He held:
“Pecuniary jurisdiction by itself does not confer jurisdiction upon a court in the absence of territorial jurisdiction. The two requirements operate cumulatively and not alternatively. A court may possess pecuniary competence to entertain a matter; however, unless territorial jurisdiction is also established in accordance with law, such court cannot assume jurisdiction merely on the basis of the valuation of the claim.”
Telangana High Court
Self-Created Urgency No Ground To Skip Pre-Institution Mediation: Telangana High Court
Case Title: Trident Chemphar Limited v. Minas De Benga & Another
Case Number: Civil Revision Petition No. 1511 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (TEL) 36
The Telangana High Court has held that a party cannot avoid the mandatory pre-institution mediation process in a commercial dispute by claiming urgency that is of its own making.
A Division Bench of Justices Nagesh Bheemapaka and Vakiti Ramakrishna Reddy dismissed a plea by Trident Chemphar Limited. The company had challenged an order returning its proposed suit against ongoing ICC arbitration proceedings for failure to first undergo pre-institution mediation.
“The urgency, if any, is thus of Petitioner's own making, arising from its decision to wait until the Majority Award was passed before approaching the civil court. Self-created urgency, as already noticed, does not satisfy the requirement of the proviso to Section 12A. To permit Petitioner to bypass the salutary mandate of Section 12A on the basis of such urgency would set a dangerous precedent and effectively, permit any party to an arbitration to avoid the requirement of pre-institution mediation by the simple expedient of waiting until an adverse procedural order is passed before rushing to court,” the Court observed.
Case Title: J. Srisailam Reddy & Another v. K. Srisailam & Others
Case Number: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 209 of 2013
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (TEL) 37
The Telangana High Court on 8 June 2026 held that an unproven resolution stated to have been passed by a trade association cannot be treated as an arbitral award and cannot operate as res judicata to bar statutory arbitration proceedings under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Justice Suddala Chalapathi Rao dismissed an appeal filed by J. Srisailam Reddy and another and upheld the arbitral award in favour of Vishnu Rice Mill, affirming the order of the District Court under Section 37 of the Act. He held:
“the petitioners have not proved that the proceedings have been drawn by following the procedure under the Act to hold that the resolution Ex.R8 to be arbitral award and thus, in the considered view of this Court, the said resolution is not amply proved to be genuine to hold or as an award much less it does not operate as res judicata so to disentitle the respondents from approaching this Court under Section 11(6) of the Act.”
Notice Issued In Name Of Non-Existing Entity Vitiates Entire Arbitral Process: Telangana High Court
Case Title : Rihim Developers Private Limited Vs Ramana Rao
Case Number: CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 643 OF 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (TEL) 38
The Telangana High Court has held that a statutory notice issued in the name of a non-existing entity is a nullity and vitiates the entire arbitral process.
The court made the observation while setting aside an arbitral tribunal's order passed in proceedings initiated on the basis of a Section 21 notice issued to a dissolved company.
A division bench of Justice K. Lakshman and Justice B.R. Madhusudhan Rao observed, “Any statutory notice issued in the name of a non-existing entity is a nullity and vitiates the entire process.”
Kerala High Court
Case Title: Hashim v Union of India and Ors.
Case Number: WP(C) 17334/ 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(KER) 103
The Kerala High Court has recently stayed an order of the Ernakulam District Collector and directed that arbitration proceedings concerning compensation for land acquired for the widening of National Highway 66 remain in abeyance.
The court found that the landowner had made out a strong prima facie case in challenging the Collector's continuation as arbitrator in the dispute.
Justice C. Jayachandran passed the interim order while considering a writ petition filed by a landowner whose compensation claim had been referred to arbitration after the acquisition of property for the National Highway project.
“Inasmuch as the petitioner has got a strong prima facie case, coupled with the principles of balance of convenience, this Court is of the opinion that Ext.P4 Order is liable to be stayed,” the Court held.