LiveLawBiz Arbitration Cases Weekly Digest: October 5 - October 10, 2026
NOMINAL INDEX
Ingram Micro India Private Limited v. Best Hawk Infosystems Private Limited, 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 556
VVAA Films Private Limited v. DUNE Collective LLP, 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 555
R.A. Ghule, through its Sole Proprietor Rajabhau Apparao Ghule v. Sinnar Municipal Council & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 552
Girish Narang v. Virendra Arora & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 560
Empire Realty v. Virani Tower Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 548
Small Farmers Agri Business Consortium v. Vanilla India Producer Company Ltd. & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 1098
M/s Sanjeevni Infra Projects Limited v. Union of India & Anr., 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 1092
Smt. Nisha Sharma v. M/s INTEC Capital Limited & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 1085
Life Insurance Corporation of India v. N.S. Associates Pvt. Ltd., 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 1084
Newton Engineering and Chemicals Limited v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 1083
Tarsem Jain v. Bharat Forge Limited & Anr., 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 1075
Shri Krishan Baldev Bansal v. Balbir Singh Tyagi & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 1069
Shikha Ghosh v. Axis Bank Ltd. & Anr., 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 1066
Principal Secretary-cum-Commissioner, Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Bihar & Anr. v. M/s Mahadev Enclave Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC (PAT) 31
Riemen Solution Private Limited v. Swiggy Limited, 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 192
Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. v. Sterling Bio Energy Systems Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 190
Sri Dilip C. & Anr. v. Smt. Diana D'Souza & Connected Matters, 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 184
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v. Joysri Sengupta & Anr., 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 247
Union of India v. M/s K.P. Trading and Company, 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 243
Kamal Krishan Chibber v. UT of J&K & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC (JAM) 33
M/s Kashmir Confectionary Store and Others / M/s Mehak Trading Co. / M/s Naugraein Traders v. M/s Mother Choice Health Care India, 2026 LLBiz HC (JAM) 34
Radhe Krishna Infrastructure v. Larsen & Toubro, 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 312
BGR Energy Systems Pvt. Ltd. v. Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation, 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 307
HIGH COURTS
Bombay High Court
Case Title Ingram Micro India Private Limited Vs. Best Hawk Infosystems Private Limited
Case Number COMM ARBITRATION PETITION (L) NO.23653 of 2026
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 556
The Bombay High Court has held that the pendency of insolvency proceedings against a company does not, by itself, mean that a creditor's claim will fail.
However, when considered alongside audited financial losses, negative net worth, substantial liabilities and limited assets, such proceedings can strengthen the case for securing a creditor's claim pending arbitration.
“The mere pendency of such proceedings does not mean that the claim of the Petitioner will necessarily fail. But when this circumstance is seen together with the audited financial loss, negative net worth, substantial liabilities and limited assets disclosed by the Respondent, it adds to the circumstances which show that protection of the assets is required,” Justice Amit Borkar observed.
Bombay High Court Restrains DUNE From Creating Third-Party Rights In 'SNAP', Protects VVAA's 40% IP
Case Title VVAA Films Private Limited v. DUNE Collective LLP
Case Number COMM ARBITRATION PETITION (L) NO.25744 OF 2026
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 555
The Bombay High Court on 5 October restrained DUNE Collective LLP from creating third-party rights in the Hindi feature film “SNAP” that could prejudice co-producer VVAA Films Private Limited's claimed 40% intellectual property interest, pending commencement of arbitration.
Justice Amit Borkar also directed DUNE to disclose records showing how it had used VVAA's funds, but declined to order specific performance of the co-production agreement or grant a blanket restraint against DUNE acting on its termination. The Bench held:
“The period which the parties agreed cannot be reduced from thirty days to thirty-six hours because the Respondent considered the alleged default to be serious,”
Case Title R.A. Ghule, through it's sole Proprietor Rajabhau Apparao Ghule vs Sinnar Municipal Council & Ors
Case Number COMM ARBITRATION APPLICATION (L) NO.15854 OF 2026
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 552
On September 7, the Bombay High Court held that an arbitration agreement cannot be created where parties never intended to arbitrate but a clause cannot be rejected merely because it does not use technical arbitration terminology if its substance demonstrates the necessary intention.
Justice Amit Borkar held that Clause 8 of the contract constituted an arbitration agreement and appointed Justice Avinash Gharote, former Judge of the Bombay High Court as the Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate disputes arising out of the contract. The Court also held Mumbai to be the seat of arbitration.
"The Court cannot create an arbitration agreement where there was no intention to arbitrate. But equally, a clause cannot be rejected only because it is not drafted in technical arbitration language, if its substance shows the necessary intention."
Case Title Girish Narang Vs. Virendra Arora 2. Samast Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. 3. Mindsweep Ideas Private Limited
Case Number ARBITRATION APPLICATION (L) NO.26915 OF 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 560
The Bombay High Court has appointed a sole arbitrator to adjudicate disputes arising from the production, financing, management and commercial exploitation of JATADHARA, the Sonakshi Sinha-Sudheer Babu starrer, holding that the parties had agreed to refer unresolved disputes to arbitration under their Partnership Deed.
Justice Amit Borkar examined the Partnership Deed dated April 1, 2025 and its Clause 11, which provides that after an attempt at amicable resolution, an unresolved dispute “shall be referred to arbitration”. The court appointed advocate Harsh Moorjani as the sole arbitrator after the parties failed to mutually appoint one under the mechanism provided in the Deed.
Case Title Empire Realty v. Virani Tower Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. & Ors
Case Number Comm Arbitration Petition (L) No. 26962 of 2026
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 548
The Bombay High Court on 7 September held that a secured creditor's possession of mortgaged property under the SARFAESI Act does not, by itself, prevent redevelopment of the property, provided the creditor's security remains protected.
Justice Amit Borkar permitted redevelopment of flats in Virani Towers, over which the State Bank of India (SBI) had taken possession under SARFAESI proceedings, while directing that the Bank's security should not be diluted or extinguished. The Bench observed:
“…Section 35 of the SARFAESI Act cannot be understood to mean that a secured property can never be redeveloped. The provision protects the operation of the SARFAESI Act against inconsistent provisions contained in other laws. It does not mean that redevelopment must stop even when the Bank's security is properly protected. The Bank continues to have its independent remedies under the SARFAESI Act.”
Delhi High Court
Directors Cannot Be Held Liable For Company Debt Merely By Their Designation: Delhi High Court
Case Title Small Farmers Agri Business Consortium v. Vanilla India Producer Company Ltd. & Ors.
Case Number FAO (COMM) 133/2024
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 1098
The Delhi High Court has restored a ₹23.39 lakh arbitral award against Vanilla India Producer Company Limited while upholding the setting aside of the award against its four directors. The court held that directors cannot be made personally liable for a company's contractual debt merely because of their positions in the company.
A Division Bench of Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Bharat Parashar observed, “The LSA having held that the Directors were not personally liable, nevertheless fastened joint and several liability upon them solely by reason of their being Directors. Such reasoning is self-contradictory and contrary to settled law.”
The Bench further observed, “The Appellant's submission that the Chairman, Managing Director and Joint Managing Director are liable with the company, despite no averment against them, is not supported by any statutory provision, contractual term or judgment placed before this Court, and is contrary to the settled position stated above.”
Bank Guarantee Invocation Valid Even Without Specifying Recoverable Amount: Delhi High Court
Case Title M/S Sanjeevni Infra Projects Limited v. Union of India & Anr.
Case Number O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 469/2026 & I.A. 27830/2026
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 1092
On 7 October, the Delhi High Court held that a performance bank guarantee can be invoked without specifying the exact amount recoverable from a contractor, provided the invocation notice states that the guarantee is being invoked to meet recoveries due or likely to be due.
Justice Manoj Jain dismissed Sanjeevni Infra Projects Limited's plea to restrain the Union of India from encashing a Rs. 1.37 crore bank guarantee issued by HDFC Bank for a Central Public Works Department (CPWD) construction contract. The Bench observed:
“Merely because the amount to be recovered or likely to be recovered from the contractor has not been specified or crystallized in the invocation notice, it would not mean that the invocation is not in terms of the contractual obligations and unsustainable. Sum and substance of the invocation notice is found to be in complete synchronization with the contractual terms and guarantee in question.”
Delhi High Court Upholds Auction Of Judgment Debtor's Property Share Despite Pre-Attachment Transfer
Case Title Smt Nisha Sharma v. M/s INTEC Capital Limited and Ors.
Case Number EFA(COMM) 28/2026
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 1085
The Delhi High Court has upheld the auction of a judgment debtor's one-half undivided share in a Delhi property. The share had been transferred before formal attachment, but the court held that the transfer could not take it outside the pending execution proceedings.
A Division Bench of Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Shail Jain held that the property had already been identified in the execution petition. Its attachment and sale had also been sought before the transfer.
“That claim cannot succeed. The property had already been identified in the pending Execution Petition and its attachment and sale had been sought before the conveyance. The transfer remained subject to the rights enforceable in those proceedings under Section 52 TPA,” the court observed.
Delhi High Court Sets Aside Entire LIC Award After Finding Arbitrator's Appointment Impermissible
Case Title Life Insurance Corporation of India v. N.S. Associates Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number FAO(OS) (COMM) 261/2026
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 1084
On 6 October, the Delhi High Court allowed Life Insurance Corporation of India's (LIC) appeal against N.S. Associates Pvt. Ltd., extending the effect of an earlier Single Judge finding that LIC's unilateral appointment of the arbitrator was impermissible.
A Division Bench comprising Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Bharat Parashar held that a party cannot challenge an arbitral tribunal's authority to undo unfavourable claims while simultaneously seeking to preserve favourable portions of the same award, setting aside the award in its entirety after finding that the sole arbitrator was invalidly appointed. It observed:
“Once the appointment of the Arbitrator by the ED of the Appellant-Corporation was found to suffer from de jure ineligibility, the Arbitral Tribunal lacked the legal competence to adjudicate the disputes between the parties. The resultant proceedings and the Arbitral Award cannot, therefore, be sustained in part merely because the challenge under Section 34 had been framed by the Respondent with reference to specified claims.”
Choosing Arbitrator From Opponent's Unilateral Panel Does Not Waive Ineligibility: Delhi High Court
Case Title Newton Engineering and Chemicals Limited v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.
Case Number FAO (COMM) 50/2026
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 1083
The Delhi High Court on 6 October held that selecting an arbitrator from a panel unilaterally constituted by the opposite party does not amount to waiver of the statutory ineligibility under Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, even if the party subsequently participates in the arbitration.
A Division Bench comprising Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Bharat Parashar allowed Newton Engineering and Chemicals Limited's appeal, holding that a mechanism where one party alone determines the panel from which the other must choose does not provide equal participation in constituting the arbitral tribunal. It observed:
“A mechanism under which one party determines the entire panel and the other party is confined to selecting one name from that panel does not provide the latter with an equal say in the constitution of the Tribunal. The subsequent act of selection cannot retrospectively transform an unequal appointment process into an equal one.”
Pre-2015 Arbitration Does Not Validate Unilateral Arbitrator Appointment: Delhi HIgh Court
Case Title Tarsem Jain v. Bharat Forge Limited and Another
Case Number FAO(OS) (COMM) 150/2025 & CM APPL. 60540/2025
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 1075
The Delhi High Court has held that the fact that an arbitration began before the 2015 amendment to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act does not, by itself, make a unilateral appointment of an arbitrator valid.
A division bench of Justice Avneesh Jhingan and Justice Shail Jain upheld the setting aside of a ₹77 crore arbitral award against Bharat Forge Limited and BF Infrastructure Limited.
The court found that Tarsem Jain, who had invoked the arbitration, breached the agreed procedure by unilaterally appointing the sole arbitrator, contrary to Clause 20.4 of the Share Purchase Agreement and Section 11 of the Act.
The court observed, “There cannot be a quarrel with the proposition that Section 12(5) of the 2015 Amendment Act shall not apply to the cases where arbitration commenced prior to October, 2015 but this in itself shall not validate the unilateral appointment of the arbitrator by the appellant in contravention to Clause 20 of the SPA and Section 11 (6) of the Act.”
Case Title Shri Krishan Baldev Bansal v. Balbir Singh Tyagi & Ors.
Case Number FAO (COMM) 64/2026 & CM APPL. 14176/2026
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 1069
On 5 October, the Delhi High Court held that a partner's claim against co-partners for money paid towards a firm's liability remains arbitrable even if the partner made the payment as a guarantor. It also clarified that the nature of the claim, and not merely the capacity in which the bank proceeded against the partner, determines whether it is covered by the arbitration agreement.
A Division Bench comprising Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Bharat Parashar restored an arbitral award in favour of Krishan Baldev Bansal, who had paid Rs. 23.90 lakh to Union Bank of India towards settlement of dues owed by partnership firm Nova Electro World. The judges observed:
“However, the mere description of the Appellant as a guarantor cannot, in the facts of the present case, conclude the question of arbitrability. The same person was simultaneously a partner of the firm and a guarantor of the firm's cash-credit facility. The Settlement Certificate itself identifies him in both capacities. The relevant inquiry, therefore, is the substance of the claim which he brought before the Tribunal and not merely the capacity in which the Bank proceeded against him.”
Case Title Shikha Ghosh v. Axis Bank Ltd. & Anr.
Case Number FAO (COMM) 91/2025 & CM APPL. 20542/2025
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 1066
The Delhi High Court has directed the Reserve Bank of India to caution banks against unilateral appointments of arbitrators and consider remedial measures or guidance for banks and financial institutions on the issue.
The direction came after the Court was informed that an arbitrator appointed by Axis Bank had handled 4,155 arbitrations concerning the Bank over four to five years. The Bank also informed the Court that around 76,000 awards had been passed pan-India by such sole arbitrators concerning Axis Bank.
A Division Bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Dinesh Bhatt said Bhardwaj's handling of 4,155 cases was the “most shocking aspect” emerging from Axis Bank's affidavit.
“The most shocking aspect uncovered from the affidavit of the Respondent Bank is that in a span of four to five years the said Arbitrator - Shri Vikrant Bhardwaj has acted as an arbitrator in a whopping 4155 cases concerning the Respondent Bank.”
Patna High Court
Writ Court Cannot Appoint Arbitrator Where Contract Mandates Statutory Mechanism: Patna High Court
Case Title Principal Secretary-cum-Commissioner, Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Bihar & Anr. v. M/s Mahadev Enclave Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Case Number Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 287 of 2026
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC(PAT)31
The Patna High Court on 29 September held that a writ court cannot appoint an arbitrator under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 when the parties' agreement provides for resolution of disputes through a statutory arbitration mechanism.
A Division Bench comprising Justices Sudhir Singh and Rajesh Kumar Verma set aside the Single Judge's order appointing a sole arbitrator in a dispute between Bihar's Mines and Geology Department and Mahadev Enclave Pvt. Ltd., noting that Clause 9 of the Standard Bid Document required the dispute to be resolved under the Bihar Public Works Disputes Arbitration Tribunal Act, 2008. The judges stated:
“From a bare perusal of the aforesaid Clause, it transpires that the dispute between the parties are to be resolved under the Bihar Public Works Disputes Arbitration Tribunal Act, 2008, apart from the aforesaid, the learned Writ Court has no power to appoint Arbitrator and Clause 9 of the Standard Bid Document has binding force between the parties.”
Karnataka High Court
Arbitration Clause Requiring Fresh Mutual Consent Is Not Binding: Karnataka High Court
Case Title Riemen Solution Private Limited v. Swiggy Limited
Case Number Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 772 of 2025
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 192
The Karnataka High Court has refused to appoint an arbitrator in a dispute between Riemen Solution Private Limited and Swiggy Limited, holding that a contractual clause making arbitration conditional on fresh mutual consent does not constitute a binding arbitration agreement.
“The Court can neither delete these words from the Agreement, nor rewrite the bargain between the parties by converting a conditional reference to arbitration into an unconditional one,” Justice H T Narendra Prasad held while dismissing Riemen's petition.
The court was considering whether a clause requiring disputes to be referred to arbitration “if mutually agreed upon by the parties” constituted a valid arbitration agreement under Section 7 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Karnataka High Court Refuses To Interfere With ₹1.10 Crore Arbitral Award Against BHEL
Case Title BHARAT HEAVY ELECTRICALS LTD vs STERLING BIO ENERGY SYSTEMS PVT. LTD., & Ors
Case Number MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.1268 OF 2017
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 190
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited's (BHEL) appeal challenging an arbitral award directing it to pay ₹1.10 crore, along with 18% annual interest, to Sterling Bio Energy Systems for expenses incurred in connection with a pilot project.
The court held that no grounds for interference under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, had been made out.
A Division Bench of Justices Anu Sivaraman and Venkatesh Naik T refused to interfere with the judgment and decree of January 4, 2017 passed by the VI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City which dismissed the suit filed by Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited (BHEL).
"We find no sustainable grounds raised warranting interference under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed."
Karnataka High Court Upholds Forfeiture Of Developer's Advance After 7-Year JDA Delay
Case Title Sri Dilip C. & Anr. v. Smt. Diana D'Souza & connected matters
Case Number COMAP No. 290 of 2025 C/W COMAP Nos. 260/2025, 263/2025, 292/2025, 294/2025 & 305/2025
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 184
The Karnataka High Court on 22 September upheld the forfeiture of a developer's advance under an arbitral award after the developer failed to implement a Joint Development Agreement (JDA) for seven years.
A Division Bench of Justices D.K. Singh and H. Shanthi Bhushan dismissed the developers' appeal and allowed the landowner's appeal concerning a Bengaluru-based multistoried housing project, restoring the forfeiture portion of the arbitral award which the Commercial Court had set aside. The judges observed:
“Forfeiture of the advance paid by the developer who failed to carry out the obligation under the JDA for 7 long years, cannot be said to be such a direction in the award which would be in conflict with the public policy of India or in contravention with the fundamental policy of Indian law nor in conflict with the basic notion of morality and justice. We also do not find that the award is vitiated by patent illegality as provided under Section 34 (2)(a) of the Arbitration Act.”
Calcutta High Court
Case Title Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Vs. Joysri Sengupta & Anr.
Case Number FMAT No. 219 of 2021
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 247
The Calcutta High Court has held that a new plea which depends on facts cannot be raised for the first time in an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to impeach an arbitral award.
The Court therefore said that BSNL could not raise for the first time in appeal its plea under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, challenge the validity of the lease of the premises used for its telephone exchange.
A Division Bench of Justices Debangsu Basak and Aryak Dutt dismissed Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited's (BSNL) appeal against the March 16, 2020 order of the Additional District Judge at Barasat which had rejected BSNL's challenge to an arbitral award dated May 13, 2016.
"In the memorandum of appeal, the appellant has questioned the validity of the lease and relied on Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. This plea was not raised before the learned Arbitrator. As far as the impugned judgment shows, it was not raised before the learned Court below. A new plea which depends on facts cannot be raised for the first time in an appeal under Section 37 to impeach an award.", the Court held.
Calcutta High Court Upholds ₹24.30 Lakh Award To Contractor After Union Failed To Provide Site
Case Title UNION OF INDIA VS. M/S K.P. TRADING AND COMPANY
Case Number FMAT(ARBAWARD)/2/2026
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 243
On 5 October, the Port Blair Circuit Bench of the Calcutta High Court upheld an arbitral award of Rs. 24.30 lakh in favour of K.P. Trading and Company, holding that the award of loss of profit was supported by the material on record and did not warrant interference.
Justices Madhuresh Prasad and Prasenjit Biswas dismissed the Union of India's appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, against the 15 September 2017 arbitral award and the Additional District Judge's order upholding it. The Division Bench observed:
“We do not find the award of the arbitrator to be suffering from any lack of reasoning, absence of any material in support of the claim, or any infirmity in the above noted facts and circumstances, to arrive at a conclusion regarding the amount to be quantified towards loss of profit. We therefore find no reason to interfere with the award of the sole arbitrator or the order passed by the Court considering the appeal under Section 34 of the 1996 Act.”
Jammu & Kashmir & Ladakh High Court
J&K High Court Says Final Bill Cannot Revive Time-Barred Claim, Upholds Set-Aside Award
Case Title Kamal Krishan Chibber v. UT of J&K &
Case Number Arb App No.05/2024
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC(JAM) 33
The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court on 6 October held that a time-barred claim cannot be revived merely because a department subsequently prepared a final bill, particularly when the bill was neither approved by the competent authority nor amounted to a written acknowledgment of liability under Section 19 of the J&K Limitation Act, Samvat 1995.
A Division Bench comprising Justices Rajnesh Oswal and Rahul Bharti dismissed a contractor's appeal against a Single Bench judgment that had set aside an arbitral award, except to the extent of the arbitrator's fee. The award had granted various monetary claims arising from a contract for execution of work at Wangat Weir, USHP-II, Kangan. It observed:
“entertaining a time-barred claim violates statutory mandate, rendering the resulting award vulnerable to being set aside for violating Public Policy.”
Supplier's Alleged Non-Registration Under MSMED Act Does Not Nullify Arbitral Award: J&K High Court
Case Title M/s Kashmir Confectionary Store and others / M/s Mehak Trading Co. / M/s Naugraein Traders v. M/s Mother Choice Health Care India
Case Number CR No. 36/2026 c/w CR No. 34/2026 & CR No. 35/2026
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC(JAM) 34
The High Court of Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh on 30 September held that an arbitral award passed under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 does not become a nullity merely because the supplier was allegedly not registered under the Act when the underlying transaction took place.
Justice Sanjay Dhar dismissed three revision petitions filed by Kashmir Confectionary Store, Mehak Trading Co. and Naugraein Traders, challenging the execution of arbitral awards obtained by Mother Choice Health Care India. The Bench observed:
“Even if, it is assumed that the respondent concern was not registered under MSME Act at the relevant time, still then for this reason only, the awards passed by the learned Arbitrator under the MSME Act would not become a nullity.”
Madras High Court
Case Title Radhe Krishna Infrastructure v. Larsen & Toubro
Case Number Arb. O.P. (Com. Div.) No. 111 of 2026
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 312
On 8 October, the Madras High Court constituted a three-member arbitral tribunal to resolve a Rs. 74.36 crore dispute between Larsen & Toubro and sub-contractor Radhe Krishna Infrastructure over the Rajkot Smart City project.
Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari held that determining whether a later work order superseded earlier contractual terms falls within the domain of the arbitral tribunal under Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Bench observed:
“Detailed examination of contractual supersession or the inter se priority of inter-related contractual documents is a matter that falls within the domain of the Arbitral Tribunal under Section 16 of the Act.”
Arbitration Requires Independent Decision-Maker And Parties' Consent To Be Bound: Madras High Court
Case Title BGR Energy Systems Pvt. Ltd vs Tamil Nadu General and DistributionCorporation
Case Number Arb.O.P.(Com.Div.) No. 157 of 2026
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 307
The Madras High Court on 8 October held that Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, cannot be used to constitute an arbitral tribunal when the parties have not agreed to arbitration, as the provision empowers an existing tribunal and presupposes an arbitration agreement.
Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari dismissed BGR Energy Systems' petition seeking appointment of a sole arbitrator to resolve contractual disputes with the Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation (TANGEDCO) over a Rs. 2,600.02 crore contract for the North Chennai Thermal Power Project Stage III. The Bench held:
“This court is unable to accept such submission. Section 16 of the Act empowers an Arbitral Tribunal that already exists. It assumes that there is an arbitration agreement under which a tribunal has been constituted. It cannot be used to bring a tribunal into being where the parties never agreed to arbitrate.”