LiveLawBiz Arbitration Cases Weekly Digest: September 14 - September 20, 2026
NOMINAL INDEX
National Seeds Corporation Ltd. v. National Agro Seed Corporation (India), 2026 LLBiz SC 312
Matsya Fincap Pvt. Ltd. v. Mohd Hassinuddin, 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 974
Unison Hotels Private Limited v. IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Limited, 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 975
M/s Lanco-Rani (JV) v. M/s National Highways Authority of India, 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 969
M/s Tinna Rubber and Infrastructure Limited v. Mr. Pankaj Gandhi, 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 966
D P Jain Bangalore Chennai Expressways Private Limited v. National Highways Authority of India & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 972
State Bank of India v. K R Anand, 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 965
Tentiwala Products Limited v. Manoj Industrial Enterprises, 2026 LLBiz HC (ALL) 75
Chakvrigu Cooperative Labour Contact & Construction Society Limited & Anr. v. State of West Bengal & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 225
Amal Krishna Dey v. Central Warehousing Corporation, 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 216
The Hooghly Mills Company Limited v. Acumen (J) Marketing Private Limited, 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 217
Innovel Energy Services Pvt. Ltd. (Previously: Environ Solar Pvt. Ltd.) v. Elevar Digitel Infrastructure Private Limited, 2026 LLBiz HC(CAL) 215
Atlantis Agritech Private Limited v. M/s Kendriya Bhandar and Another, 2026 LLBiz HC (TEL) 70
Kiran Narendra Patkar v. Milan Narendra Patkar and Another, 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 520
SAP India Private Limited v. Cox and Kings Limited, 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 522
Jyoti Structures Limited v. Africa Power Company CC, 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 523
China Fortune Corporation Limited v. Gandhar Oil Refinery India Limited, 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 514
M/s. Shanti Telefilms v. M/s. Amma Creations, 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 265
M/s Sundaram Finance Limited v. A. Arun Kumar & Anr.; M/s Sundaram Finance Limited v. S. Maheswari & Anr., 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 263
State of Sikkim v. Nimmi Oberoi, 2026 LLBiz HC (SI) 2
Sukhjinder Singh v. Punjab State Coop. Supply & Marketing Fed. Ltd. & Anr., 2026 LLBiz HC(PNH) 52
State of Chhattisgarh & Anr. v. ECI-Keystone (JV), 2026 LLBiz HC (CHH) 26
Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Limited v. Larsen and Toubro Limited & connected appeal, 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 165
The Commissioner v. The Karnataka Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council and Another, 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 160
Lotus Landmarks (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. RVP City Owners & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 161
National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Polymech Plast Machines Ltd., 2026 LLBiz HC (GUJ) 130
SRM Constructions v. UOI, 2026 LLBiz HC (HP) 32
Supreme Court
Case Title National Seeds Corporation Ltd. v. National Agro Seed Corporation (India)
Case Number Civil Appeal of 2026 (@ SLP (C) No. 5710 of 2025 )
Citation 2026 LLBiz SC 312
The Supreme Court has asked the Law Commission of India to examine the need for a uniform system governing money deposited with courts and tribunals during appeals.
The exercise will cover where such money should be kept, how it should earn interest, and how the deposit and interest should ultimately be adjusted between the parties.
The direction came while the top court held that National Seeds Corporation Ltd. remained liable to pay 12% interest on an arbitral award amount despite having deposited money in court. The money had been deposited as a condition for staying the award and was not freely available to National Agro Seed Corporation (India) for withdrawal.
A Bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe held that a deposit in court does not by itself stop interest from running. For interest liability to cease, the payment must comply with Order XXI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which lays down the modes of paying money under a decree.
The bench ruled, “A deposit of the amount in the court has to be made unconditionally and the same must be available to the decree-holder for withdrawal, in order to make the deposit in consonance with Order XXI Rule 1 of the Code.”
It further held, “If the deposit is not made in terms of Order XXI Rule 1 of the Code, the interest continues to run on the amount after the deposit.”
Delhi High Court
Pre-Named Arbitrator Can Constitute Tribunal Only If Mutual Consent Continues: Delhi High Court
Case Title Matsya Fincap Pvt. Ltd. v. Mohd Hassinuddin
Case Number FAO (COMM) 221/2024
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 974
On 16 September, the Delhi High Court held that naming an arbitrator in an arbitration agreement may reflect the parties' mutual and continuing consent to his appointment. However, where one party alone appoints the named arbitrator after a dispute arises, the appointment must satisfy the safeguards under Section 12(5) read with the Seventh Schedule to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
A Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetrapal and Shail Jain dismissed Matsya Fincap Pvt. Ltd.'s appeal and upheld the Commercial Court's order setting aside an ex-parte arbitral award in its favour against guarantor Mohd. Hassinuddin. The judges held:
“A named arbitrator may validly constitute the tribunal where the designation itself represents the parties' mutual and continuing consent to such constitution. However, where the record demonstrates that one party alone invokes the clause and appoints the named person after the dispute has arisen, the Court is required to examine the appointment in the context of the statutory safeguards contained in the A&C Act.”
Two-Year Delay In Pronouncing Arbitral Award Not Enough To Set It Aside: Delhi High Court
Case Title Unison Hotels Private Limited v. IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Limited
Case Number FAO(OS) (COMM) 29/2026 & CM APPL. 11008/2026
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 975
The Delhi High Court has held that a two-year delay in pronouncing an arbitral award cannot, by itself, be a ground to set aside the award unless the delay is unexplained and is shown to have adversely affected the findings.
A Division Bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Vinod Kumar made the observation while setting aside a single judge's order.
The order had set aside a ₹65.12 crore arbitral award in favour of Unison Hotels Private Limited against IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Limited
“Delay in its rendition does not vitiate an arbitral award, unless it is positively demonstrated and held that the delay fatally impacted the findings in the award,” the bench observed.
'Vague Intuition' Of Arbitrator Bias Not Enough To Set Aside Award: Delhi High Court
Case Title M/s Lanco-Rani (JV) v. M/s National Highways Authority of India
Case Number OMP(COMM) 145/2017
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 969
The Delhi High Court has recently dismissed a challenge to an arbitral award, holding that a belated suspicion of bias cannot by itself justify interference with an award.
“According to this Court, a vague intuition of biasness at such a belated stage or a simple suspicion by an unhappy party of biasness is not enough to claim biasness, as any such allegation must rest on solid facts, clear evidence, or statutory conflicts,” Justice Om Prakash Shukla held.
The court was hearing a petition filed by Lanco-Rani (JV) under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, challenging a majority arbitral award in its dispute with the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI).
No Separate Signature Needed On Invoice Arbitration Clause If Parties Acted On It: Delhi High Court
Case Title M/s Tinna Rubber and Infrastructure Limited v. Mr. Pankaj Gandhi
Case Number ARB.P. 745/2026 & I.A. 11290/2026; CNR No. DLHC010176142026
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 966
The Delhi High Court on 9 September held that the absence of a separate signature on an arbitration clause printed on the reverse of invoices does not, by itself, negate the existence of an arbitration agreement where the invoices were received and acted upon.
Justice Om Prakash Shukla referred the commercial dispute between Tinna Rubber and Infrastructure Limited and Pankaj Gandhi to arbitration and appointed Advocate Mansvini Jain as the sole arbitrator. The Bench observed:
“The Respondent's principal objection is that the terms contained in Clause 18 of the agreement were never separately signed or accepted by him. However, mere absence of separate signature on the reverse/overleaf of the invoices, in the facts of the present case, does not by itself conclude the issue against the existence of an arbitration agreement.”
Delhi High Court Constitutes Tribunal For D P Jain-NHAI Dispute, Allows Change In SAROD Procedure
Case Title D P Jain Bangalore Chennai Expressways Private Limited v. National Highways Authority of India & Ors.
Case Number O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 385/2026
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 972
The Delhi High Court on 10 September constituted a three-member Arbitral Tribunal to adjudicate disputes between D P Jain Bangalore Chennai Expressways Private Limited and the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) arising from the termination of a Concession Agreement for construction of a section of the Bangalore-Chennai Expressway.
Justice Sachin Datta constituted the Tribunal after both parties jointly agreed to depart from the arbitration procedure prescribed under their agreement, which required disputes to be referred to the Society for Affordable Resolution of Disputes (SAROD). The Bench observed:
“The stipulation in an arbitration agreement as to the institution under whose aegis the arbitration is to be conducted, and as to the manner in which the Arbitral Tribunal is to be constituted, is a matter of contract between the parties and is always open to variation by mutual consent. Where such consent is arrived at in the course of hearing and is recorded in the order of the Court, the arbitration agreement stands modified pro tanto.”
Case Title State Bank of India v. K R Anand
Case Number O.M.P. (COMM) 69/2024 & I.A. 2596/2024
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 965
On 15 September, the Delhi High Court partly set aside an arbitral award in favour of contractor K.R. Anand in a dispute with State Bank of India (SBI) over the construction of 76 residential flats for its officers in Noida.
Justice Avneesh Jhingan noted that an arbitrator cannot award overhead losses using the Emden formula without evidence establishing the actual loss suffered or showing that such loss was difficult or impossible to prove, while upholding some portions of the award while setting aside awards towards overhead expenditure and Price Variation Adjustment (PVA) for the project's third extension. The Bench held:
“However, even on a fair reading of the award as a whole no reason emanates for the arbitrator accepting the calculation based on the Emden formula without there being evidence to prove the loss suffered or that it was difficult or impossible to prove the actual loss suffered. The award of claim no.1 falls within the teeth of Section 31(3) of the Act.”
Allahabad High Court
Case Title Tentiwala Products Limited v. Manoj Industrial Enterprises
Case Number APPEAL UNDER SECTION 37 OF ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996 No. - 3 of 2026
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC (ALL) 75
The Allahabad High Court has held that an arbitral tribunal's decision rejecting a claim as time-barred is a final arbitral award.
It said that a separate observation terminating the proceedings under Section 32(2)(c) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, was unnecessary and could not be used to deny the claimant a challenge to the award.
Referring to Section 32(2)(c), the bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Kshitij Shailendra held
“The said provision has nothing to do in a case where the Arbitral Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the reference/claim made is barred by limitation. The order, in fact, would be covered by provisions of Section 32(1) of the Act which provide for termination of arbitral proceedings by way of final arbitral award which, in the present case, is on account of the Council coming to the conclusion that the claim made was time barred.”
Calcutta High Court
Case Title CHAKVRIGU COOPERATIVE LABOUR CONTACT & CONSTRUCTION SOCIETY LIMITED & ANR. VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.
Case Number WPA 19048 of 2019
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 225
The Calcutta High Court has held that where a contract contains an arbitration clause, parties have an alternative remedy of invoking arbitration, particularly when the dispute involves questions of fact that cannot be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta, relying on the judgment of Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and others reiterated that writ jurisdiction may still be exercised in exceptional circumstances including violation of fundamental rights or principles of natural justice,or where proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction.
"When there is an arbitration clause, the parties have an alternative remedy to approach for arbitration for their disputes whatsoever. This court is conscious that despite the availability of the alternative remedy. With reference to the decision of Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and others, it is clearly established that the High Court may still exercise its writ jurisdiction on discretionary power when it is found (i) where the writ petitioner seeks enforcement of any of the fundamental rights; (ii) where there is violation of the principles of natural justice; (iii) where the orders or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act and rule is challenged."
Case Title Amal Krishna Dey v. Central Warehousing Corporation
Case Number AO-COM 35 of 2025
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC(CAL) 216
The Calcutta High Court has upheld the setting aside of an arbitral award passed by an arbitrator appointed unilaterally by the Managing Director of the Central Warehousing Corporation.
It held that a contractual clause permitting such appointment could not override the post-dispute written waiver requirement under Section 12(5)
A Division Bench of Justice Debangsu Basak and Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta dismissed an appeal filed by contractor Amal Krishna Dey against the Commercial Court's decision to set aside an award of over ₹16 lakh in his favour.
The Court held that Section 12(5) overrides prior agreements permitting an interested party's managing director to appoint the sole arbitrator. The ineligibility could be waived only through an express written agreement executed after the dispute arose.
The Bench observed:
“The proviso to Section 12(5) permits only one route out: an express agreement in writing entered into after the disputes have arisen. A pre-dispute clause of general application, drafted into the standard conditions of contract, does not meet that description, however, clearly worded.”
Arbitrator's Elevation As Judge Did Not Affect Award Passed Before Taking Oath: Calcutta High Court
Case Title The Hooghly Mills Company Limited v. Acumen (J) Marketing Private Limited
Case Number AP-COM/607/2026
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC(CAL) 217
The Calcutta High Court has held that the elevation of an arbitrator as a High Court judge did not affect the validity of an arbitral award passed by him. The award was passed hours before he took oath as a judge on the same day.
The order was passed by Justice Gaurang Kanth, who rejected Acumen (J) Marketing Private Limited's objection to sole arbitrator Partha Pratim Roy's competence after his elevation as an Additional Judge of the Calcutta High Court.
The bench noted that the award was rendered at 2:00 p.m. on August 8, 2026, while Roy assumed judicial office only upon taking the oath at 4:15 p.m. that day.
The Bench observed, “The learned Arbitrator assumed judicial office upon taking oath at 4:15 p.m. on 8th August, 2026, whereas the award was passed earlier that day, at 2:00 p.m., prior to his elevation. The objection, therefore, does not affect the validity or publication of the award.”
Case Title Innovel Energy Services Pvt. Ltd. (Previously: Environ Solar Pvt. Ltd.) v. Elevar Digitel Infrastructure Private Limited
Case Number AP-COM 385 of 2026
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC(CAL) 215
The Calcutta High Court has reiterated that the location of an MSME Facilitation Council does not, by itself, determine the territorial jurisdiction of courts over proceedings arising from an arbitral award.
Applying this principle, the court held that an exclusive-jurisdiction clause in favour of the New Delhi courts governed a Section 29A application seeking an extension of the arbitral mandate after an award was passed by the West Bengal Micro Small Enterprises Facilitation Council (WBMSEFC), Kolkata.
Justice Gaurang Kanth observed, “Section 18(3) of the MSMED Act itself provides that where the Facilitation Council proceeds to arbitrate the dispute, the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act shall apply to the dispute as if the arbitration were pursuant to an arbitration agreement under Section 7 of the said Act. Consequently, once the statutory arbitral proceedings culminate in an award, any challenge to, or proceeding arising in relation to, such award is governed by the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The statutory location of the Facilitation Council, therefore, cannot by itself be treated as determinative of the territorial jurisdiction of the Court under Section 2(1)(e) of the Arbitration Act.”
Telengana High Court
Case Title Atlantis Agritech Private Limited v. M/s Kendriya Bhandar and Another
Case Number Civil Revision Petition No. 1947 of 2026
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC(TEL) 70
The Telangana High Court has held that an award debtor cannot use execution-stage objections to sidestep the mandatory 75% deposit required under the MSMED Act.
The ruling came in a dispute between MSME supplier Atlantis Agritech Private Limited and Kendriya Bhandar, after the latter sought to keep asset-disclosure proceedings in abeyance pending its application under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure before the Executing Court.
The High Court held that such proceedings cannot be treated as independent of the Section 19 mandate requiring an award debtor to deposit 75% of the awarded amount and that a Section 47 application cannot automatically exempt the debtor from that requirement.
A Division Bench of Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice Renuka Yara allowed a civil revision petition filed by Atlantis and directed the award debtor, Kendriya Bhandar, to file a fresh affidavit disclosing the specific amounts receivable by it from ongoing and completed projects across India within three weeks.
The bench observed, “Section 47 of the CPC which allows the Judgment-Debtor to raise questions in relation to the decree can be equated to a challenge to the decree or Award as contemplated under section 19 of the MSMED Act. This is by reason of the fact that the Judgment-Debtor seeks to resist the execution of the decree under a section 47 application which is similar to an application for setting aside a decree/award made by the Facilitation Council. Therefore, proceedings under section 47 cannot said to be independent of the mandate in section 19 of the MSMED Act. Section 47 of the CPC also does not pre-suppose that the Judgment-Debtor would automatically be exempted from making the 75% deposit of the decretal amount.”
Bombay High Court
Forgery Allegation Alone No Ground To Reject Plea For Arbitrator Appointment: Bombay High Court
Case Title Kiran Narendra Patkar v. Milan Narendra Patkar and Another
Case Number Commercial Arbitration Application (L) No.23278 of 2026 with Commercial Arbitration Petition (L) No.23009 of 2026
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM)520
The Bombay High Court has held that an allegation that an arbitration agreement was forged does not automatically require rejection of an application for appointment of an arbitrator where independent documents provide a prima facie basis for the agreement's existence.
Justice Amit Borkar appointed Advocate Ranjeev Carvalho as sole arbitrator to decide the Patkar House redevelopment dispute between developer Kiran Narendra Patkar and Milan Narendra Patkar. All objections concerning the agreement's execution, genuineness, and enforceability were left open for the arbitrator.
The Court found that a registered will and a later gift deed referred to the redevelopment transaction. These documents provided sufficient prima facie material to permit arbitration, although the respondents remained free to prove their forgery allegations before the tribunal.
The court observed: “The submission based upon Rajia Begum succeeds only to a limited extent. I accept that where the arbitration agreement is alleged to be forged, the Court has to consider that objection as a jurisdictional issue. However, I do not accept that merely raising such an allegation requires rejection of the Section 11 Application. The real test is whether the material makes the non-existence of the arbitration agreement so clear that arbitration cannot be allowed to start. In the present case, that position is not reached.”
Case Title SAP India Private Limited Versus Cox and Kings Limited
Case Number COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 865 OF 2026
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 522
The Bombay High Court on 10 September extended the mandate of an arbitral tribunal headed by former Supreme Court judge Justice Madan Lokur by one year and allowed SAP India Private Limited's pending claim against Cox & Kings to proceed.
A Bench of Justice Arif S. Doctor found that the delay in completing the arbitration was not attributable to any deliberate, wilful or negligent default by SAP or the tribunal. He observed:
“The delay in completion of the arbitral proceedings before the Justice Lokur Tribunal cannot, in the facts of the present case, be attributed to any deliberate, wilful or negligent default on the part of the Petitioner, much less of the Tribunal. In these circumstances, to permit the mandate to lapse without affording the Petitioner an opportunity to have its pending claim adjudicated would, in my view, defeat rather than advance the underlying object of the arbitral process.”
120-Day Written Statement Period Must Be Computed Under General Clauses Act: Bombay High Court
Case Title Jyoti Structures Limited vs Africa Power Company CC
Case Number WRIT PETITION NO. 10803 OF 2026
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 523
The Bombay High Court on 7 September held that whether the 120-day period for filing a written statement in a commercial suit has expired must be determined by correctly computing the period under Section 9 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, and not by applying a strict or liberal construction of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
Justice N. J. Jamadar allowed Jyoti Structures Ltd.'s writ petition against Africa Power Company CC and set aside the Commercial Court's 18 June 2026 order rejecting its application to condone the alleged one-day delay in filing the written statement. The Bench observed:
“However, the question as to whether the period of 120 days has expired or not, is not a matter of strict or liberal construction of the provisions of the Act, 2015. It is simply a matter of computation of the period, applying the well established principle incorporated in Section 9 of the Act, 1897, in the matter of computation of time. The strict construction of the provisions contained in the Act, 2015, does not imply that, the provisions of the Act, 2015, shall not be correctly construed. In other words, the strict construction cannot be equated with an erroneous interpretation of the provisions.”
Bombay High Court Condones 530-Day Delay In Foreign Award Enforcement Amid Limitation Uncertainty
Case Title China Fortune Corporation Limited v. Gandhar Oil Refinery India Limited
Case Number nterim Application (L) No. 19323 of 2026 in Commercial Arbitration Petition No. 499 of 2021
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 514
The Bombay High Court has condoned a 530-day delay in seeking enforcement of a foreign arbitral award, holding that the uncertainty over the limitation period applicable to enforcement of foreign awards constituted sufficient cause for the delay.
Justice Arif S. Doctor observed that the delay arose from “the lack of clarity in the law at the time regarding the applicable period of limitation for the enforcement of a foreign award” and not from ignorance or misunderstanding of the law.
The court held that, in these circumstances, depriving China Fortune Corporation Limited of its right to seek enforcement would be “wholly unconscionable”.
Madras High Court
Case Title M/s. Shanti Telefilms vs M/s. Amma Creations
Case Number OA No. 372 of 2026 and Arb Appln.Nos.944 & 945 of 2026
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 265
The Madras High Court has disposed of three applications seeking to restrain the release and commercial exploitation of Tamil film Agni Siragugal after Amma Creations undertook not to release, distribute or otherwise commercially exploit the film without clearing the claimed dues.
Justice K. Kumaresh Babu recorded the undertaking and directed that it be strictly abided by until the disposal of the arbitral proceedings. The order was passed on September 15.
The applications were filed by Shanti Telefilms against Amma Creations under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. This provision allows a party involved in an arbitration dispute to seek interim protection from a court.
Justice Babu ruled:
“In view of the statement that had been made by the respondent by way of an affidavit, recording the affidavit, all these applications stand disposed of and it is made clear that the said undertaking shall be strictly abided by the respondent till the disposal of the arbitral proceedings.”
Case Title M/s Sundaram Finance Limited v. A. Arun Kumar & Anr.; M/s Sundaram Finance Limited v. S. Maheswari & Anr.
Case Number CRP Nos. 4649 & 4436 of 2026
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 263
The Madras High Court on 31 August held that an Executing Court cannot suo motu refuse to enforce an arbitral award on the ground that the arbitrator was unilaterally appointed when the award-debtors have neither challenged the award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 nor contested its execution.
Justice P.B. Balaji allowed two civil revision petitions filed by Sundaram Finance Limited against the award-debtors, set aside the orders refusing execution and directed the Executing Courts to enforce the arbitral awards “as it stands”. The Bench observed:
“Admittedly, in the present cases, the award sufferers have neither challenged the awards in a manner known to law, by filing a Section 34 application under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, nor even come forward to contest the execution petitions as well. In the absence of any such challenge on the side of the award sufferers, the Executing Court cannot suo motu exercise a right to dismiss the execution petitions, on finding that the appointment of the Arbitrator was unilateral.”
Sikkim High Court
Case Title State of Sikkim v. Nimmi Oberoi
Case Number CRP. No. 6 of 2026
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC (SI) 2
The Sikkim High Court has held that a judge who earlier decided an application for interim protection in an arbitration dispute does not have to automatically recuse from hearing a subsequent challenge to the arbitral award arising from the same arbitration.
Justice Bhaskar Raj Pradhan observed that automatic recusal would not be required unless the State of Sikkim could demonstrate a real and reasonable apprehension of bias. Allowing such a recusal, according to the court, would be akin to allowing parties to choose their judges.
"I am also of the considered view that the learned Judge who decided the application under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act does not have to automatically recuse from subsequently hearing the appeal under section 34 arising from the same arbitration unless the State of Sikkim is able to demonstrate a real and reasonable apprehension of bias. If an application for recusal is permitted on the mere asking on the ground that the learned Judge had decided one way or the other earlier on an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act, it would lead to the party choosing their Judge which would not be proper for administration of justice"
Punjab & Haryana High Court
Employee's Death During Appeal Does Not Nullify Disciplinary Punishment: Punjab & Haryana High Court
Case Title Sukhjinder Singh v. Punjab State Coop. Supply & Marketing Fed. Ltd. & Anr
Case Number CWP-7516-2013 (O&M)
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC(PNH) 52
The Punjab & Haryana High Court on 2 September held that an employee's death during the pendency of a departmental appeal does not automatically nullify a disciplinary punishment imposed during his lifetime.
Justice Sandeep Moudgil dismissed a writ petition filed by Sukhjinder Singh, son of former Punjab State Cooperative Supply & Marketing Federation Ltd. (Markfed) Branch Officer M.S. Cheema, challenging the reduction of his father's pay by two stages for calculating retiral dues over negligence relating to a shortage of paddy stocks worth about Rs. 26 lakh. The Bench held:
“The principle emerging from the aforesaid decision is that where the disciplinary enquiry has already culminated and a punishment has been imposed during the lifetime of the employee, the subsequent death of the employee during pendency of an appeal does not automatically nullify the punishment already imposed.”
Chhattisgarh High Court
Case Title State of Chhattisgarh & Anr. v. ECI-Keystone (JV)
Case Number WP227 No. 768 of 2026
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC(CHH) 26
The Chhattisgarh High Court has recently held that government officers cannot be made personally liable for an unpaid arbitral award merely because they are responsible for processing or arranging payment on behalf of their department.
Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal observed, “The liability created by the award cannot, in execution, be converted into a personal monetary liability of an officer merely because such officer happens to be responsible for processing or arranging payment on behalf of the department.”
"If the award-debtor is a State department or authority, the Executing Court may certainly require the competent authority to disclose the position regarding assets, funds, sanctions or the steps taken for satisfaction of the award and may adopt the modes of execution permissible under Order XXI CPC; however, it cannot, merely for securing payment of a money award, impose upon individual officers a liability which does not flow from the award or from any adjudication in which they were personally liable", It added.
Karnataka High Court
Karnataka High Court Sets Aside ₹13.08 Crore Award To L&T In Bengaluru Metro Contract Dispute
Case Title: Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Limited v. Larsen and Toubro Limited & connected appeal;
Case Number Commercial Appeal No. 124 of 2025 C/W Commercial Appeal No. 116 of 2025
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 165
The Karnataka High Court has recently set aside parts (around ₹13.08 Crore) of an arbitral award arising from a ₹303.29 crore Bengaluru Metro construction contract between Larsen & Toubro Limited (L&T) and Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Limited (BMRCL).
The court found shortcomings in the tribunal's treatment of claims relating to reduced parapet quantities, revised rates for 18 delayed pier locations and unpaid reinforcement quantities. It also set aside the tribunal's finding on L&T's entitlement to time-related costs during the prolonged contract period.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice K.S. Hemalekha observed: “The court cannot re-appreciate or re-validate evidence and supplant its opinion in place of the Arbitral Tribunal in proceedings under Section 34 of the A&C Act. However, it is not disputed that if the Arbitral Tribunal has disregarded evidence or material which is relevant, the arbitral award would be liable to be set aside.”
Case Title The Commissioner v. The Karnataka Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council and Another
Case Number Writ Appeal No. 1490 of 2024 (GM-RES)
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC(KAR) 160
The Karnataka High Court on 3 September held that the State cannot circumvent the statutory limitation for challenging an arbitral award passed by the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council by invoking the High Court's writ jurisdiction for a merits review.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice K.S. Hemalekha allowed the writ appeal filed by the Commissioner, Bhoomi Monitoring Cell, only to the extent of holding that the State's writ petition challenging a Rs. 29.32 lakh award in favour of Connoinseur Electronics Pvt. Ltd. ought not to have been entertained on merits. The judges held:
“Plainly, the appellant cannot be permitted to overcome the period of limitation by avoiding the statutory remedy and seeking the extraordinary remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.”
Case Title Lotus Landmarks (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. RVP City Owners & Ors
Case Number MFA No. 103181 of 2022 (AA)
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC(KAR) 161
The Karnataka High Court on 31 August held that where an arbitration agreement gives both parties the right to nominate an arbitrator, one party's nominee cannot proceed as the sole arbitrator merely because the other party failed to make its nomination. The party that has exercised its right to nominate must instead approach the Court under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
A Division Bench of Justices S. Sunil Dutt Yadav and K.G. Shanthi allowed Lotus Landmarks' appeal against the dismissal of its challenge to an arbitral award, holding that the nominee appointed by RVP City Owners could not have proceeded as the sole arbitrator. The judges observed:
“Where an Arbitration Clause provides for nomination of an Arbitrator by each of the parties, the exercise of such option by one of the parties and non-exercise of such option by the other party does not ipso facto lead to abandonment of procedure prescribed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act and resort to proceedings by a nominee of one of the parties is impermissible.”
Gujarat High Court
Case Title National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Polymech Plast Machines Ltd.
Case Number R/First Appeal No. 3873 of 2014 with R/Cross Objection No. 15 of 2015
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC (GUJ) 130
The Gujarat High Court set aside majority awards granting Rs. 40.53 lakh to Polymech Plast Machines Limited in its insurance dispute with National Insurance Company Limited and upheld the minority award granting Rs. 4.25 lakh.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice D.N. Ray held that an arbitral award is vitiated by perversity where arbitrators rely on an office note as the governing insurance policy while excluding the policy containing the arbitration clause. The judges observed:
“To our mind, the greatest perversity which is apparent in the award in question is that the policy sought to be excluded by the learned Arbitrator contains the arbitration clause whereas, the policy sought to be relied upon by the said learned Arbitrators do not contain any arbitration clause. For this reason alone, the reliance upon the so-called policy to the exclusion of Fire Policy -'C' vitiate the awards.”
Himachal Pradesh High Court
Case Title SRM Constructions Vs. UOI
Case Number Ex. Pet No.19 of 2025
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC(HP) 32
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that an execution petition filed in 2025 to enforce a 2012 arbitral award was within limitation.
It held that the period during which the award was deemed to be automatically stayed under the law then prevailing had to be excluded while calculating limitation.
Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua observed, “In the instant case, objections under Section 34 of the Act were preferred by the respondent-Judgment Debtor within the prescribed limitation period. Therefore, even though no separate application had been moved by the judgment debtor seeking stay of the arbitral award impugned therein, yet by virtue of the law laid down in the aforesaid decisions, there was deemed construction of automatic stay of award on the filing of petition under Section 34 of the Act. Such construction suspended the period of limitation from the date of the award i.e. 20.03.2012.”