Nominal Index
T.K.A. Padmanabhan v. Abhiyan Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd., Through Its Secretary, 2026 LLBiz SC 229
M/s Bafna Global Venture Pvt. Ltd. v. National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT) & Anr., 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 639
NHAI v. Patel Karsanbhai and Others, 2026 LLBiz HC (GUJ) 73
M/s. Soham Consultancy Services v. Limbdi Nagarpalika, 2026 LLBiz HC (GUJ) 74
Pandya Naresh Chandra Through POA Gaurang Bhavsar v. Shalin Infrastructure & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC (GUJ) 75
Smt G.S Sridevi v. Shri H Mahadev Goud, 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 92
M/s Ganesh Foundry and Castings Limited v. The Bihar State Electricity Board (now M/s Bihar State Power (Holding) Company Limited) & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC (PAT) 15
Bihar State Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. v. Amit Kumar, 2026 LLBiz HC (PAT) 16
JVS Foods Pvt. Ltd. v. M.P. State Agro Industries Development Corporation Ltd., 2026 LLBiz HC (MP) 48
Rajpath Contractors and Engineers Ltd. v. Union of India and Anr., 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 156
Vizag Seaport Private Limited v. Steel Authority of India Limited, 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 159
G. Selvam v. Union of India represented by the Executive Engineer, Madurai Central Division, Central PWD, Madurai, 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 161
A.V. Anoop v. Sandeep Chandrasenan Nair & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 153
Universal Tele Services v. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 158
The Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. M/s Vigyan Chemical Industries, 2026 LLBiz HC (UTT) 10
Cinepolis India Private Limited v. Sree Thirumala Infra Private Limited, 2026 LLBiz HC (TEL) 39
Mahaguj Collieries Ltd. v. Adani Enterprises Ltd., 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 356
Supreme Court
Case Title : T.K.A. Padmanabhan v. Abhiyan Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd., Through Its Secretary
Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 10724 of 2016
Citation : 2026 LLBiz SC 229
The Supreme Court has held that a consumer who has invoked the Consumer Protection Act cannot be forced into arbitration merely because the underlying agreement contains an arbitration clause.
It restored a homebuyer's complaint alleging delayed possession of a flat for adjudication on merits before a consumer forum.
A Division Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and V. Mohana set aside orders of the consumer fora that had referred the dispute between T.K.A. Padmanabhan and Abhiyan Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd. to arbitration.
"The 1986 Act creates a special adjudicatory mechanism for consumer disputes. Once that mechanism is validly invoked and the complaint is admitted, the consumer cannot be driven out of that forum merely because the agreement between the parties contains an arbitration clause. A private contractual clause cannot be permitted to defeat the continued operation of a statutory remedy which Parliament has expressly made additional to other remedies under Section 3 of the 1986 Act," the court observed.
Delhi High Court
Delhi High Court Restrains NCERT From Invoking ₹6.09 Crore Bank Guarantee Against Paper Supplier
Case Title : M/s Bafna Global Venture Pvt. Ltd. v. National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT) & Anr.
Case Number : O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 250/2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 639
The Delhi High Court has restrained the National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT) from taking coercive steps to invoke a ₹6.09 crore bank guarantee furnished by a paper supplier.
It also directed that no coercive action be taken pursuant to NCERT's order terminating the supply contract and debarring the company for two years, until the next hearing on July 20.
Justice Mini Pushkarna passed the interim order in an arbitration petition filed by Bafna Global Venture Pvt. Ltd. challenging NCERT's June 22 order. After considering the company's submissions, the court held that the matter required consideration.
Observing so, the court directed, "Considering the submissions made before this Court, it is directed that no coercive action shall be taken for invoking the Bank Guarantee bearing no. 0005NDDG00220426 dated 10th December, 2025 amounting to Rs. 6,09,20,000/-, in pursuance to the Order dated 22nd June, 2026, invoking the Bank Guarantee, till the next date of hearing."
Gujarat High Court
Case Title : NHAI v Patel Karsanbhai and Others
Case Number : R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2086 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(GUJ)73
The Gujarat High Court on 8 June held that an arbitral award determining compensation under the National Highways Act, 1956 cannot be interfered with under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 where the Arbitrator has assessed market value in accordance with Section 26 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 based on the evidence on record.
A Bench of Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice D.N. Ray dismissed an appeal filed by the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) and upheld the Commercial Court's order refusing to set aside the arbitral award in favour of Patel Karsanbhai and other landowners, which determined compensation by adopting the highest jantri rate. The judges observed:
“Further Section 26 of the Act of 2013 provides various criteria in assessment and determination of the market value of the land, one of which is jantri value. And the factual inquiry has been made by the Arbitrator in accordance with the provisions of Section 26 of the Act' 2013 based on the material collected by him and the evidence adduced by the parties, which cannot be re-examined by this Court by re-appreciation of evidence, as it would hit on the face of scope of judicial scrutiny under Sections 34 and 37 of the Act' 1996.”
Works Contract Disputes Must Go To Statutory Tribunal, Not Private Arbitration: Gujarat High Court
Case Title : M/s. Soham Consultancy Services v. Limbdi Nagarpalika
Case Number : Petition Under Arbitration Act No. 71 of 2024
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(GUJ)74
The Gujarat High Court on 19 June held that payment disputes arising from agreements which are, in substance, public works contracts cannot be referred to private arbitration under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and must instead be adjudicated by the Gujarat Public Works Contracts Disputes Arbitration Tribunal under the Public Works Contracts Disputes Arbitration Tribunal Act, 1992.
Justice D.N. Ray dismissed a Section 11 petition filed by Soham Consultancy Services seeking appointment of an arbitrator in its Rs. 38.96 lakh payment dispute with Limbdi Nagarpalika. The Bench held:
"A conjoint reading of the 'scope of work' and the understanding of the petitioner as to its own scope of work as reflected in the pleadings before this Court leave no manner of doubt that the amount which is sought to be claimed from the respondent-Nagarpalika cannot be simply termed as 'fees' but rather as 'consideration' for a works contract."
Case Title : Pandya Naresh Chandra Through POA Gaurang Bhavsar v. Shalin Infrastructure & Ors.
Case Number : R/Special Civil Application No. 558 of 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(GUJ)75
On 22 June, the Gujarat High Court held that non-production of a Power of Attorney in arbitral proceedings is a curable procedural defect and cannot, by itself, justify rejection of a claim or termination of arbitration proceedings.
Justice Niral R. Mehta allowed a writ petition filed by a homebuyer and set aside an arbitral tribunal's order rejecting his claim against Shalin Infrastructure, restoring the arbitral proceedings. The Bench observed:
“The jurisdiction vested in an arbitral tribunal is intended to facilitate adjudication of disputes on their substantive merits and not to defeat legitimate claims by resorting to hyper-technical procedural objections, particularly where the defect is capable of rectification. In that view of the matter, the rejection of the claim solely on account of non-production of the Power of Attorney amounts to an exercise of jurisdiction not sanctioned by the provisions of the Act and is therefore liable to be characterised as jurisdictionally erroneous.”
Karnataka High Court
Case Title: Smt G.S Sridevi v. Shri H Mahadev Goud
Case Number : Writ Petition No. 10641 of 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(KAR) 92
The Karnataka High Court has recently held that an order rejecting a jurisdictional objection by an arbitral tribunal cannot ordinarily be challenged through a writ petition while arbitral proceedings are pending. Such a challenge must ordinarily await the arbitral award stage.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj delivered the ruling while declining to interfere with an order of a sole arbitrator who had rejected a challenge to the tribunal's jurisdiction in a dispute arising from an Agreement of Sale.
“Thus, until an arbitral award is passed, an order rejecting a plea under Section 16 of the A & C Act is ordinarily not amenable to an independent challenge. The statutory scheme clearly postpones such a challenge to the stage of proceedings under Section 34,” the court held.
Patna High Court
Correction Of Contradictory Operative Direction Does Not Amount To Review Of Award: Patna High Court
Case Title: M/s Ganesh Foundry and Castings Limited v. The Bihar State Electricity Board (now M/s Bihar State Power (Holding) Company Limited) & Ors.
Case Number : Commercial Appeal No. 6 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(PAT) 15
The Patna High Court on 18 June held that an arbitral tribunal may correct an apparent contradiction or computation error under Section 33 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, where the correction aligns the operative portion of the award with the tribunal's findings and does not amount to a review on merits.
A Division Bench of Justices Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Kumar Manish dismissed the appeal filed by Ganesh Foundry and Castings Limited and upheld the additional arbitral award as well as the Commercial Court's order refusing to interfere with it. It observed:
“To this Court, it appears that the cluster of words such as 'any computation errors, any clerical or typographical errors or any other errors of a similar nature occurring in the award' are to be given a purposive interpretation in the context in which this provision has been incorporated in the statute. In a world of commercial exigencies this provision has to be interpreted in such a way that it serves the purpose behind incorporating Section 33 of the Act of 1996.”
Case Title : Bihar State Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. v. Amit Kumar
Case Number: Miscellaneous Appeal No. 485 of 2022
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(PAT) 16
The Patna High Court on 18 June allowed an appeal filed by the Bihar State Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. against the contractor operating Nalanda Cafeteria, set aside the order of the Additional District Judge rejecting a Section 8 application, and directed reference of the dispute to arbitration under Clause 40 of the allotment letter.
Justice Khatim Reza held that conduct of parties such as acceptance of an allotment letter, payment of licence fees and continued commercial operation can establish a binding intention to arbitrate even in the absence of a formally executed agreement. The Bench observed:
“Moreover, the plaintiff has acted upon the allotment letter and continued the commercial business for running Nalanda Cafeteria, Nalanda and accepted to pay the payment of license fees for succeeding year. The clause contained in the allotment letter clearly stipulate a reference to arbitration deserve to be construed as an arbitration clause.”
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Case Title: JVS Foods Pvt. Ltd. v. M.P. State Agro Industries Development Corporation Ltd.
Case Number: ARBITRATION CASE No. 90 of 2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (MP) 48
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that a party cannot "blow hot and cold" on arbitration by opposing arbitral reference after having accepted or relied on arbitration in similar disputes arising from the same agreement.
The court consequently appointed a sole arbitrator to resolve a dispute over the valuation of shares following a proposed exit from a shareholders' agreement.
Justice Deepak Khot passed the order in a dispute between JVS Foods Pvt. Ltd. and M.P. State Agro Industries Development Corporation Ltd. The court appointed former High Court judge Justice Alok Verma as the sole arbitrator and directed that the proceedings be conducted at Bhopal.
“Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, the non-applicant cannot blow hot and cold according to their whims and wishes when it comes to the appointment of the arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the parties. As in the present case the dispute is admitted, the non-applicant themselves have categorically replied the notice of arbitration by saying that still there are negotiations going on, therefore, it is appropriate that the parties should be relegated to the arbitration to resolve their dispute.”
Calcutta High Court
Case Title : Rajpath Contractors and Engineers Ltd. v. Union of India and Anr.
Case Number : AP-COM 247 of 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 156
The Calcutta High Court has recently referred a ₹38.07 crore dispute arising out of an Eastern Railway bridge construction contract to arbitration, reiterating that the existence of a No Claim Certificate does not, by itself, render disputes non-arbitrable.
Justice Gaurang Kanth constituted a three-member arbitral tribunal headed by former Supreme Court judge Justice Pinaki Chandra Ghose, with Senior Advocates Ritzu Ghosal and Saptangshu Basu as co-arbitrators.
"It is well settled that the existence of a No Claim Certificate, by itself, does not oust the jurisdiction of the Arbitral Tribunal or render the disputes non-arbitrable," the court observed.
Case Title : Vizag Seaport Private Limited v. Steel Authority of India Limited
Case Number : APO 112 of 2022 with IA No. GA/1/2022
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 159
The Calcutta High Court has recently dismissed an appeal filed by Vizag Seaport Private Limited (VSPL) and upheld an earlier order setting aside a majority arbitral award.
The award had directed the Steel Authority of India Ltd. (SAIL) to pay nearly ₹19.68 crore towards claimed demurrage and storage charges.
The court held that the parties' Short Term Agreement (STA) did not provide for such charges. It also held that VSPL had waived its right to claim them by not seeking to include such a provision when the contract was reviewed.
A division bench of Justices Arijit Banerjee and Om Narayan Rai observed that the agreement contained no express provision permitting recovery of demurrage charges.
"The terms and conditions of the STA do not expressly provide for demurrage charges. Therefore, if the same were to be levied the same ought to have been included while reviewing the terms. Not having done so would mean waiver of the appellant's right to claim such charge.", the court held.
Madras High Court
Madras High Court Restores Arbitral Award, Says District Judge Erred In Calling It 'Hypothetical'
Case Title : G. Selvam v. Union of India represented by the Executive Engineer, Madurai Central Division, Central PWD, Madurai
Case Number : Arb. Appeal (MAD) No.58 of 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 161
The Madras High Court at Madurai has recently set aside an order of the Madurai Principal District Judge insofar as it annulled an arbitral award granting ₹14.04 lakh as an early completion bonus to a contractor in a dispute with the Union of India over the construction of a Kendriya Vidyalaya school building at Sivagangai.
The bench of Justice V. Lakshminarayanan held that the Principal District Judge's characterisation of the arbitral award as "hypothetical" reflected non-application of mind.
Restoring the award, the court observed that the arbitrator had taken a plausible view, based on documentary evidence, that had the Union of India supplied cement, steel, structural drawings, and the colour scheme in time, the contractor would have completed the work 92 days in advance and earned the contractual bonus.
The bench observed, "It was not a hypothetical conclusion as concluded by the learned Principal District Judge. In order to arrive at the conclusion, he referred to page no.4 of CSF as well as Ex.C6. Hence, the conclusion arrived at by the learned Principal District Judge that it is a hypothetical conclusion and therefore, requires interference, shows non-application of mind by the learned Principal District Judge."
Madras High Court Stays Release Of Dileep-Starrer 'Neekkam' Over Financial Dispute
Case Title : A.V. Anoop v. Sandeep Chandrasenan Nair & Ors.
Case Number : O.A.No.605 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 153
The Madras High Court has restrained the release, distribution, and exhibition of the Malayalam film 'Neekkam', starring Dileep and directed by Jagan Shaji Kailas.
The temporary order came on a plea filed by A.V. Anoop, proprietor of AVA Productions, who claimed a contractual charge over the film after alleging that its producer had failed to repay advances extended under earlier production agreements.
Justice K. Kumaresh Babu granted ad-interim protection to AVA Productions. The court also issued notice to the respondents and made it returnable in four weeks.
Madras High Court Allows Telecom Contractor To Bid In Fresh BSNL Tender Pending Arbitration
Case Title : Universal Tele Services v. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited
Case Number: Arb.O.P.(Com.Div.) No.349 of 2026 and O.A. Nos.445 & 446 of 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 158
The Madras High Court has granted interim relief to Universal Tele Services by allowing it to submit a bid in a fresh Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) tender for telecom operations.
The dispute over the termination of its contracts will meanwhile be decided through arbitration. The court directed that BSNL should process the bid only after the arbitrator passes orders.
Justice K. Kumaresh Babu passed the order. The court also clarified an earlier order appointing former High Court judge Justice V. Bharathidasan as sole arbitrator. It made clear that he would adjudicate disputes arising under two agreements covering BSNL's North and Central operational areas. The arbitrator was also given the discretion to deal with both disputes jointly or simultaneously.
The court observed, "This Court is of the view that the applicant could be permitted to submit the tender and the same shall be processed only after orders are passed by the learned Arbitrator."
Uttarakhand High Court
Case Title : The Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. M/s Vigyan Chemical Industries
Case Number : Appeal From Order No. 600 of 2012
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(UTT) 10
The Uttarakhand High Court has recently upheld an arbitral award directing Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. to pay ₹34,000 to Vigyan Chemical Industries in an insurance claim dispute.
The court rejected the insurer's contention that acceptance of a lower amount against the claim prevented the insured from seeking the balance through arbitration.
Justice Ravindra Maithani heard the appeal filed by Oriental Insurance against a District Judge's order refusing to set aside the award.
Observing that acceptance of a part payment did not bar the insured from pursuing the remaining claim, the court held,
"What is argued by the respondent is that the receipt was provided by the appellant and the respondent was made to sign on a doted lines. This fact is not disputed by learned counsel for the appellant. It is not disputed that the appellant had made claim for Rs.1,79,000/-. When he was not given the entire claimed amount, he referred to the matter to the Arbitrator. It cannot be said that under such facts and circumstances the respondent was precluded or estopped from referring the matter to the Arbitrator. The Arbitrator has decided the matter in accordance with law."
Telangana High Court
Case Title : Cinepolis India Private Limited v. Sree Thirumala Infra Private Limited
Case Number : Arbitration Application No.108 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (TEL) 39
The Telangana High Court has appointed former Acting Chief Justice Justice P. Naveen Rao as an independent arbitrator to adjudicate disputes between Cinepolis India Private Limited and Sree Thirumala Infra Private Limited.
The order was passed by Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh after the parties agreed to the appointment. The court also took on record the statutory disclosure submitted by the proposed arbitrator.
Bombay High Court
Case Title: Mahaguj Collieries Ltd. Versus Adani Enterprises Ltd.
Case Number :COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 483 OF 2018
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 356
The Bombay High Court on Thursday set aside an arbitral award directing Mahaguj Collieries Ltd to pay about ₹32.79 crore to Adani Enterprises Ltd towards land acquisition expenses incurred for the Machhakata coal block in Odisha.
The court held that the dispute could not have been decided through a summary award.
Observing that the tribunal had failed to analyse the contractual provisions or the requirements of the Contract Act before directing payment, the court held:
"Remarkably, the Impugned Award contains no analysis of Sections 56 and 65 of the Contract Act – they are summarily invoked without applying the ingredients of the provisions to the facts of the case. Equally, there is no analysis of the provisions of the CMSA to analyse and indicate the nature of the agreement between the parties, as to how they had contracted to share the risk apportionment between them in the event of the CMSA getting terminated or becoming void."