Nominal Index
TBEA Energy India Private Limited v. M/s Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited & M/s Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited v. TBEA Energy (India) Private Limited, 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 671
Indiacan Education Private Limited v. Ministry of Rural Development & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 670
South Eastern Railway v. Sara International Pvt. Ltd., 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 667
India International Convention and Exhibition Centre Limited v. Larsen & Toubro Limited, 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 664
Chirag Jain v. Rahul Jain & Anr. and Chirag Jain v. Samayesh Khanna & Anr., 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 661
Newgen IT Technologies Ltd. (earlier known as Vcare Infotech Solutions and Services Private Limited) v. Newgen Software Technologies Ltd., 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 656
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v. M/s BWL Ltd., 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 651
Amadeus IT Group S.A. (Spain) v. Ebix Cash Limited & Anr., 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 652
Vedanta Limited & Anr. v. Government of India Through Joint Secretary, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 657
Shailesh R. Gandhi & Ors. v. Late Ramchandra R. Gandhi & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 363
Zawar Sales Corporation v. Reliance Petro Marketing Limited, 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 364
Capalpha Trade Private Limited v. Dentsu Communications India Pvt. Ltd., 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 365
Vaswani Projects Private Limited v. Utsahi Maratha Mandal Co-operative Housing Society Limited & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 371
Norvic Shipping Asia PTE Limited v. Zigma International, 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 368
NHAI v. Rajib Boruah, 2026 LLBiz HC(GAU) 20
Beautiful Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. The Airports Authority of India, 2026 LLBiz HC(KER) 118
Prem Lal Jain v. Sujoy Kumar Dey and Others, 2026 LLBiz HC(CAL) 161
A.R. Abdul Razak v. Ashritha House Building Co-operative Society Ltd. & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC(KAR) 95
M/s N.N. Constructions v. Union of India & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC(KAR) 100
Abhishek Suresh Mehta & Ors. v. M/s Parth Developers & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC(GUJ) 84
High Courts
Delhi High Court
Delhi High Court Upholds Tribunal's Practical Interpretation Of Contract In ₹67 Cr BHEL-TBEA Dispute
Case Title: TBEA Energy India Private Limited v. M/s Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited & M/s Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited v. TBEA Energy (India) Private Limited
Case Number : O.M.P. (COMM) 307/2022 and O.M.P. (COMM) 294/2022
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 671
The Delhi High Court on 1 July held that an arbitral tribunal's practical and commercial interpretation of a contract does not warrant interference under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and partly upheld an arbitral award arising from a Rs. 67 crore transformer supply contract, modifying it only to grant statutory post-award interest.
Justice Subramonium Prasad partly allowed the petition filed by TBEA Energy India Private Limited and dismissed the petition filed by Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited (BHEL), challenging different parts of an arbitral award concerning liquidated damages, an additional performance bank guarantee (APBG) and costs. He observed:
“There is a fine distinction between the interpretation of a contract and disregard of the terms of the Contract. It can be said that instead of giving a restrictive meaning to the terms of the contract, the Arbitrator took a practical and commercial approach.”
Case : Title Indiacan Education Private Limited v. Ministry of Rural Development & Ors.
Case Number: ARB.P. 605/2025 & I.A. 11842/2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 670
On 2 July, the Delhi High Court referred the disputes arising out of the Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Grameen Kaushalya Yojana (DDU-GKY) project between Indiacan Education Pvt. Ltd. and the National Institute of Rural Development (NIRD) and others to arbitration and appointed advocate Varun Chopra as the sole arbitrator.
Justice Mini Pushkarna observed that in a petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, courts must ordinarily leave the question of whether a non-signatory to a Memorandum of Understanding is a “veritable party” to the arbitration agreement to the arbitral tribunal when its determination requires appreciation of pleadings and evidence. The Bench held:
“Having regard to the limited scope and standard of judicial scrutiny under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act, this Court considers it inappropriate to make a conclusive determination as to whether respondent nos. 1 and 3 are veritable parties to the arbitration agreement. The said issue necessarily entails an extensive appreciation of pleadings and evidentiary material. Accordingly, the final determination of whether respondent nos. 1 and 3 are amenable to the arbitral proceedings is best left to be adjudicated by the Arbitral Tribunal.”
Delhi High Court Upholds ₹130 Crore Arbitration Award Against South Eastern Railway
Case Title : South Eastern Railway v. Sara International Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : O.M.P. (COMM.) 62/2022 & I.A. 944/2022
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 667
The Delhi High Court has upheld an arbitral award of more than ₹130 crore in favour of Sara International Pvt. Ltd. against South Eastern Railway.
It held that the Railways could not seek a fresh appreciation of evidence after repeatedly failing to cross-examine the company's witnesses or produce rebuttal evidence before the arbitral tribunal.
Justice Jasmeet Singh observed, "For the reasons best known to it, the petitioner elected not to avail any opportunity granted by the AT and has consciously refrained from actively participate in the proceedings. Even in the present petition, no satisfactory explanation has been given by the petitioner for its conduct and/or approach."
Case Title : India International Convention and Exhibition Centre Limited v. Larsen & Toubro Limited
Case Number : ARB.A. (COMM.) 35/2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 664
Interim monetary relief on disputed claims cannot be granted as a matter of course during arbitration proceedings and must be reserved for exceptional cases meeting a higher threshold, the Delhi High Court has held.
It set aside an arbitral tribunal's direction requiring India International Convention and Exhibition Centre Limited (IICECL) to release about ₹227 crore to Larsen & Toubro Limited (L&T).
Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar observed that although arbitral tribunals have wide powers to grant interim protection, those powers cannot be routinely used to direct payment of contested monetary claims.
"Section 17(1)(ii)(e) of the A&C Act is undoubtedly couched in broad language and may, in certain respects, confer powers wider than those traditionally exercised under Order XXXIX of the CPC. However, the width of the provision cannot justify its routine invocation for directing payment of disputed monetary claims. Such power must be exercised sparingly and only upon strict satisfaction of the requirements governing interim relief.", the court held
Case Title : Chirag Jain v. Rahul Jain & Anr. and Chirag Jain v. Samayesh Khanna & Anr.
Case Number: ARB.P. 145/2026 and ARB.P. 146/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 661
The Delhi High Court has appointed Advocate Veena Ralli as sole arbitrator to adjudicate a share purchase dispute between stand-up comedian Chirag Jain, popularly known as Papa CJ, and the promoters of Delhi-based coffee startup Beanly Beverages.
The court held that whether the company, which did not sign the share purchase agreements, can nevertheless be treated as a party to the arbitration agreement is an issue that must be decided by the arbitral tribunal after examining the evidence.
Justice Mini Pushkarna noted that Rahul Jain and Samayesh Khanna, who executed the share purchase agreements with Jain, had already consented to the appointment of a sole arbitrator. The only issue before the court was Beanly Beverages' objection to being referred to arbitration as a non-signatory.
"However, the question whether a Company, acting through its controlling shareholders and Directors, who are themselves parties to the Arbitration Agreement, can be treated as a party thereto by virtue of the transaction structured and implemented through them, is an issue which would necessarily require a detailed examination of the facts and evidence. It is trite law that this question cannot be conclusively determined at the stage of Section 11 of the Arbitration Act. ", the court ruled.
Delhi HC Holds Name Change Doesn't Nullify Arbitration Clause, Refers Newgen Dispute To Arbitration
Case Title : Newgen IT Technologies Ltd (earlier known as Vcare Infotech Solutions and Services Private Limited) v Newgen Software Technologies Ltd
Case Number: FAO (COMM) 112/2025 &CM APPL. 27327/2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 656
On 1 July, the Delhi High Court referred a trademark infringement dispute between Newgen Software Technologies Ltd and Newgen IT Technologies Ltd, formerly known as Vcare Infotech Solutions and Services Pvt Ltd, to arbitration.
A Division Bench of Justices C. Hari Shankar and Om Prakash Shukla set aside a Commercial Court order that had refused to refer the parties to arbitration, holding that a mere change in corporate name does not extinguish an arbitration clause in a subsisting agreement. The judges held:
“The mere change in the corporate name of one of the parties does not bring the contract between them to an end... if this were so, a party to a contract could, by merely changing its corporate name, stand excused of its liabilities under the contract.”
Case Title : BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD. vs M/S BWL LTD.
Case Number : O.M.P. (COMM) 43/2020
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 651
The Delhi High Court on Wednesday upheld two arbitral awards directing Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (BSNL) to refund nearly ₹19.31 lakh and ₹44.95 lakh deducted from telecom equipment contractor BWL Ltd. towards price reduction.
The court held that the original contracts did not permit BSNL to unilaterally impose a price reduction while granting extensions of time.
Justice Jasmeet Singh observed that novation of a contract requires mutual agreement and consensus ad idem between the parties. Holding that the original contract could not be novated merely because BSNL unilaterally imposed conditions while granting extensions of time, the Court said:
"From a conspectus of the aforesaid, it is clear that the most crucial element for effecting a novation of a contract is mutual agreement between the parties, no such novation/alteration can be effected unless the parties to an agreement are at consesnsus ad idem. Thus, in the present matter, the original Contract would only have been novated when the parties would have mutually agreed to discharge the old contract and accept the new one. No unilateral novation by imposing any condition can possibly be done by any party to bind the other."
Case Title : Amadeus IT Group S.A. (Spain) v. Ebix Cash Limited & Anr.
Case Number : O.M.P. (EFA) (COMM.) 2/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC DEL 652
The Delhi High Court has allowed enforcement of a €9.71 million International Chamber of Commerce arbitral award in favour of Spain-based travel technology company Amadeus IT Group S.A. against Ebix Cash Limited.
The court rejected Ebix Cash's objections that the underlying transaction violated Indian public policy and held the foreign award enforceable in India.
Justice Jasmeet Singh also rejected Ebix Cash's contention that the enforcement petition was filed beyond the limitation period.
The court held that the right to seek enforcement of a foreign arbitral award does not invariably arise on the date the award is made and must be determined on the facts of each case.
"The right to apply in case of a foreign Award as contemplated under Article 137 of the 1963 Act, would mean a fact/bundle of facts which would trigger the Award Holder to take steps for execution of its rights under the Award, and the same is not fixed. There is no straight jacket formula for accrual of right to apply and it will vary from case to case and in the present case it will be from date of communication of the Award.", the court observed.
Delhi High Court Enforces $454 Million Foreign Arbitral Awards In Favour Of Vedanta, Ravva Oil
Case Title ; Vedanta Limited & Anr. v. Government of India Through Joint Secretary, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas
Case Number : O.M.P. (EFA) (COMM.) 5/2017
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 657
The Delhi High Court has enforced two foreign arbitral awards in favour of Vedanta Limited and Ravva Oil (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. in a long-running dispute over the sharing of profit petroleum from the Ravva Oil Field in Andhra Pradesh. It ruled that the Union government's objections amounted to an impermissible attempt to reopen the merits of the awards.
Justice Jasmeet Singh delivered the judgment. He held that the dispute arose from the interpretation of the parties' Production Sharing Contract (PSC) and did not justify refusing enforcement of the awards.
The court observed, "The parties share a contractual relationship and how the PTRR must be calculated in terms of the PSC, to my mind cannot by any stretch of imagination lead to alleged violation of public policy of India neither can the findings arrived by the AT in this regard be said to be against justice or morality."
Bombay High Court
Case Title : Shailesh R. Gandhi & Ors. v. Late Ramchandra R. Gandhi & Ors.
Case Number : COMM ARBITRATION PETITION (L) NO.18386 OF 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 363
The Bombay High Court has recently granted interim protection to one branch of the Gandhi family behind the Vadilal brand. It restrained Vadilal Industries Ltd., Vadilal International Pvt. Ltd. and other Ahmedabad Group entities from interfering with the Bombay Group's continued use of the "Vadilal" trademark in Maharashtra, Goa, Karnataka, Kerala, Andhra Pradesh and Telangana until arbitration over a family settlement is decided.
Justice Amit Borkar held that the Bombay Group had established a prima facie case for interim relief while deciding a petition arising from a family settlement executed in 1993.
The court observed that, at the interim stage, the dispute could not be viewed as arising only from the Registered User Agreement.
"This Court is, prima facie, of the opinion that the disputes raised by the petitioners cannot be treated as arising only out of the Registered User Agreement.", the court ruled.
Bombay High Court Upholds Award Rejecting LPG Distributor's ₹40 Crore Claim Against Reliance Petro
Case Title : Zawar Sales Corporation vs Reliance Petro Marketing Limited
Case Number : COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION PETITION (L) NO. 14180 OF 2021
Citation ; 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 364
The Bombay High Court has recently upheld an arbitral award rejecting most of an LPG distributor's nearly ₹40 crore damages claim against Reliance Petro Marketing Ltd. It held that the arbitrator's interpretation of the distribution agreements and the evidence on record warranted no interference.
Justice Kamal Khata held that the award dated March 25, 2021 was neither vitiated by patent illegality nor contrary to the fundamental policy of Indian law.
"Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that the Impugned Award dated 25th March 2021 is a well-reasoned decision based on a plausible interpretation of the contract and a thorough appreciation of the evidence on record. The Petitioner has failed to establish any ground that would warrant interference under Section 34 of the Arb. Act. The award is not vitiated by patent illegality, nor is it in conflict with the fundamental policy of Indian law."
Case Title : Capalpha Trade Private Limited vs Dentsu Communications India Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 183 OF 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 365
The Bombay High Court on Tuesday held that criminal proceedings or allegations of serious offences, even those punishable with life imprisonment, do not by themselves make a dispute unsuitable for arbitration.
Before declining to hear such a dispute, an arbitral tribunal must explain how the allegations amount to "serious fraud" with wider public implication
Justice Gauri Godse allowed Capalpha Trade Pvt Ltd's appeal and set aside an arbitral tribunal's August 3, 2023 order. The tribunal had accepted Dentsu Communications India Pvt. Ltd.'s objection that allegations of fraud, collusion, conspiracy, forgery and fabrication involving third parties made the dispute non-arbitrable.
"Therefore, mere pendency of criminal proceedings or the alleged offences punishable with severe imprisonment, including life imprisonment, cannot itself be a ground for allowing the application under Section 16. It is necessary to record reasons as to how the allegations in the criminal complaint would amount to an allegation of serious fraud in the arbitral reference resulting in public implications," the court held.
Arbitral Proceedings U/S 9 Cannot Be Used To Reopen Redevelopment Developer Appointment: Bombay HC
Case Title : Vaswani Projects Private Limited vs Utsahi Maratha Mandal Co-operative Housing Society Limited & Ors
Case Number : COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION PETITION (L) NO.16351 OF 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 371
The Bombay High Court on 3 July held that the validity of a housing society's decision appointing a developer for redevelopment cannot be reopened in proceedings under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and that such objections must be pursued through remedies available under law.
Justice Amit Borkar allowed a petition filed by Vaswani Projects Pvt Ltd., granted interim protection for redevelopment of the Utsahi Maratha Mandal Co-operative Housing Society at Bandra, Mumbai, and directed dissenting members to hand over possession for redevelopment. He observed:
“These facts are not disputed by the respondents. Therefore, at this stage, I do not find that the appointment of the petitioner as developer can be reopened in these proceedings. If any member had grievance about the appointment process or the resolutions passed by the Society, the law provides a remedy. Such issue cannot be gone into while deciding the present petition under Section 9.”
Case Title : Norvic Shipping Asia PTE Limited v. Zigma International
Case Number : Commercial Arbitration Petition (L) No. 15734 of 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 368
The Bombay High Court has held that a party seeking interim protection before arbitration need not prove that the opposite side has dishonestly transferred or concealed its assets.
A strong possibility that the assets may diminish before an arbitral award is enforced is sufficient to justify protection.
Justice Amit Borkar observed, "The expression 'a strong possibility of diminution of assets would suffice' does not mean that the applicant must prove that the respondent has dishonestly transferred or concealed its assets. At the same time, every apprehension expressed by the claimant cannot be accepted. What is required is that the surrounding facts should indicate that the respondent's assets are likely to become less in value or may not remain available by the time the arbitral award is to be enforced. If such circumstances are shown, the Court may exercise powers under Section 9 even before the assets are transferred. "
Gauhati High Court
Case Title : NHAI v Rajib Boruah
Case Number: Arb.A./7/2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (GAU) 20
The Gauhati High Court recently observed that an order directing the release of a deposited award amount during the pendency of a Section 34 challenge cannot be appealed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The bench of Justice Robin Phukan held an appeal filed by the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) against an interim order directing the release of the award amount to a landowner to be non-maintainable.
The court held, “The upshot of aforesaid discussion is that the appellant herein cannot typically challenge the order releasing the deposited amount directly under Section 37, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, as the same is not one of the enumerated appealable orders.”
Kerala High Court
Case Title : Beautiful Properties Pvt Ltd v. The Airports Authority of India
Case Number: AR No. 215 of 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(KER) 118
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday held that mere exchange of letters or representations between parties cannot extend the limitation period for filing an application seeking appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Justice S. Manu observed that once limitation begins to run, recurrent communications between parties cannot stop or stretch the statutory period.
“If a party waits indefinitely, without seeking reference by approaching the Court under S.11 of the Act, even after the 'breaking point', it cannot be permitted to justify the delay citing repeated communications with the opposite party,” it held.
The court made the observation while dismissing an arbitration request filed by Beautiful Properties Pvt. Ltd. against the Airports Authority of India (AAI) seeking appointment of an arbitrator.
Calcutta High Court
Case Title : Prem Lal Jain v Sujoy Kumar Dey and Others
Case Number : APO 220/2015 and APO 75/2019
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 161
The Calcutta High Court recently held that the mere expeditious conclusion of arbitral proceedings, by itself, does not establish fraud vitiating an award. Fraud must be demonstrated through cogent attending circumstances and cannot be inferred from speed alone.
The bench of Justices Debangsu Basak and Shabbar Rashidi set aside an order passed by the executing court in an award arising from a sale dispute, holding that no case of fraud had been made out.
The court held, “Simplicitor on the ground that, the arbitration proceeding was disposed of expeditiously, without any other attending circumstances support fraud being perpetrated we are not in a position to return a finding, the award stood vitiated by fraud.”
Karnataka High Court
Case Title : A.R. ABDUL RAZAK vs ASHRITHA HOUSE BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD & ORS
Case Number : COMMERCIAL APPEAL NO.318 OF 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 95
The Karnataka High Court has upheld an arbitral award directing a landowner to execute sale deeds for the remaining sites under a development agreement.
It held that the society's claim was not barred by limitation because the agreement did not prescribe a fixed date for execution of the remaining sale deeds, and limitation began only when performance was refused.
A division bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice K.S. Hemalekha dismissed an appeal by landowner A.R. Abdul Razak against an order upholding the arbitral award. The award directed execution of the remaining sale deeds at the agreed rate of ₹620 per sq. ft. and rejected his counterclaim.
"We find considerable force in the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-society. Admittedly, the development agreement [Ex.P1] does not specify any fixed date for execution of the remaining sale deeds. Consequently, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 becomes applicable namely, limitation commences when the plaintiff has noticed that the performance is refused.", the court held.
Contractor Must Prove Loss Of Profit On Unexecuted Work; No Automatic Damages: Karnataka High Court
Case Title : M/S. N.N. CONSTRUCTIONS vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS
Case Number : COMMERCIAL APPEAL NO. 177 OF 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 100
The Karnataka High Court has held that a contractor claiming damages for loss of profit on unexecuted works is not barred from raising such a claim merely because the work remained unexecuted.
However, the contractor must prove that it actually suffered the loss. "If a contractor is prevented from executing the contract on account of reasons attributable to the employer, the contractor is not precluded from raising a claim for loss of profits for the unexecuted works," the court observed.
It added, "However, the contention that the contractor is not required to establish that it had suffered such loss is unmeritorious."
A division bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice K.S. Hemalekha dismissed an appeal filed by N.N. Constructions. The appeal challenged an order refusing to set aside an arbitral award arising from a railway widening contract with South Western Railway.
Gujarat High Court
Case Title : Abhishek Suresh Mehta & Ors. v. M/s Parth Developers & Ors.
Case Number : R/Petn. Under Arbitration Act No. 145 of 2025 with connected petitions and applications.
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (GUJ) 84
The Gujarat High Court on Thursday held that once the statutory period for making an arbitral award expires, parties cannot rely on party autonomy or institutional arbitration rules to choose the court that will extend an arbitral tribunal's mandate.
It held that, beyond the period expressly permitted under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, only the court recognised under the statute can extend the tribunal's mandate.
Justice Niral R. Mehta delivered the judgment while upholding a preliminary objection raised by a partnership firm in an arbitration arising from business transactions of the partnership firm and disputes among its partners.
The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the applications and granted liberty to the parties to approach the competent court for extension of the arbitrator's mandate.