LiveLawBiz Arbitration Cases Weekly Digest: September 28 - October 3, 2026
NOMINAL INDEX
Ambica Beri v. Forum Atmosphere Flat Owner's Association, 2026 LLBiz HC(CAL) 235
Sri C.C. Kondaiah v. Mysore City Corporation & Anr., 2026 LLBiz HC(KAR) 173
Indian Bank v. Bank of Baroda & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 1022
Kurukshetra Expressway Private Limited v. National Highways Authority of India, 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 1023
M/s Airport Handling Services v. Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur, 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 1027
Wello Retail Pvt. Ltd. v. Sant Parmanand Blind Relief Mission, 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 1028
Percept Talent Management Limited v. Sourav Chandidas Ganguly
Ebix Technologies Limited v. Amadeus IT Group S.A. (Spain)
Amazon Seller Services Private Limited v. Goodluck Buildtech Private Limited & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 1031
New Consolidated Construction Company Limited v. Limitless Contracting Private Limited & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 538
Sri A.N. Srinivasa Reddy v. Maarq Spaces and Properties LLP & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC(KAR) 178
Hammad Ahmed v. Abdul Majeed & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 1039
Chandramouli V. v. American International School Chennai, 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 283
ISGEC Heavy Engineering Limited v. Prakash Industries Limited, 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 1037
Shree Satguru Developers & Ors. v. Chandrashekhar Champalal Hingarh & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 539
Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. v. Sh. Pankaj (Since Deceased) Thr LRs, 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 1042
JioStar India Pvt. Ltd. v. Green Bean Sports Marketing, 2026 LLBiz SC 320
Lion Rubber Industries Private Limited & Anr. v. Santec Exim Private Limited & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 542
M.K. Construction v. Maj. Gen. Hoshiar Singh (Retd.) & Anr., 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 1046
Grand Blue Projects Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s True Value Home India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 286
Indus Towers Limited v. Bilkishbanu Tofiqhussain Lokhandwala & Anr., 2026 LLBiz HC(GUJ) 141
British Marine PLC v. Steel Authority of India Ltd., 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 1080
Vijaya Sharana Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. v. Office of Registrar of Cooperative Societies & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC(KAR) 183
Smart City Kochi Infrastructure Private Limited v. M/s Musthafa and Almana International Consultants, 2026 LLBiz SC 326
Marudhara Primeinfra Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s Lahoty Buildcon Limited & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC(RAJ) 52
M. Jothi v. Project Director, National Highways Authority of India & Others; Tmt. Ambika v. Project Director, National Highways Authority of India & Others, 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 292
Rajkumar Theatres Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s Wide Angle Creations & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 293
SUPREME COURT
Case Title: Percept Talent Management Limited v. Sourav Chandidas Ganguly
Case Number: Diary No. 40971/2026
The Supreme Court on Monday refused to interfere with a ₹14.49 crore arbitral award in favour of former Indian cricketer Sourav Chandidas Ganguly in his dispute with Percept Talent Management Limited.
The award had directed payment of ₹14.49 crores along with 12% annual interest from November 21, 2007 until the award and further 12% interest thereafter besides ₹50 lakh towards costs.
A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana after hearing the parties said, “No case to interfere with the impugned order is made out. The Special Leave Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed."
Case Title: Ebix Technologies Limited v. Amadeus IT Group S.A. (Spain)
Case Number: Diary No. 47784/2026
The Supreme Court has refused to interfere with the Delhi High Court's July 1, 2026 judgment, allowing enforcement in India of a €9.71 million International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) arbitral award in favour of Spain based travel technology company Amadeus IT Group S.A. against Ebix Cash Limited.
A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana dismissed Ebix Technologies' Special Leave Petition.
"Having heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner as well as learned senior counsel for respondent No.1, who is on Caveat, we see no ground to interfere with the impugned judgment dated 01.07.2026 passed by the High Court of Delhi. The Special Leave Petition is, accordingly, dismissed.", the Court said.
Case Title: JioStar India Pvt. Ltd. v. Green Bean Sports Marketing
Case Number: Arbitration Petition No. 16 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz SC 320
The Supreme Court has appointed former Bombay High Court judge Justice S.C. Gupte as the Sole Arbitrator to resolve a dispute between JioStar India Pvt Ltd and Green Bean Sports Marketing.
The dispute arises from an agreement under which JioStar granted Green Bean IPL media rights for the 2023-2027 seasons exclusively in Bangladesh.
A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana allowed the petition and appointed Justice S.C. Gupte, former Judge of the Bombay High Court, as the Sole Arbitrator. The Court fixed Mumbai as the seat and venue of arbitration.
"In view of the facts and circumstances recorded above, we deem it just and proper to allow the instant petition and appoint Justice S.C. Gupte, former Judge of the Bombay High Court, as the Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties arising out of the Media Rights Sub-License Agreement dated 30.03.2023, read with the Amendment Agreement dated 01.03.2024. The seat and venue of the arbitration, in accordance with the said agreement, shall be Mumbai, India.", the Court said.
Case Title: Smart City Kochi Infrastructure Private Limited v. M/s Musthafa and Almana International Consultants
Case Number: Special Leave Petition (C) No. 28782 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz SC 326
The Supreme Court has appointed former Supreme Court Judge Justice K.M. Joseph as Arbitrator to resolve the monetary disputes between Smart City Kochi Infrastructure Pvt Ltd. and Musthafa and Almana International Consultants arising from a sub lease of premises in the SmartCity Special Economic Zone (SEZ).
A Division Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran while asking the parties to approach Justice Joseph within two weeks with a copy of the order, directed that the parties' claims relating to rent, maintenance charges, damages and the legality of termination be adjudicated in arbitration under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
DELHI HIGH COURT
Case Title: Kurukshetra Expressway Private Limited v. National Highways Authority of India
Case Number: FAO(OS) (COMM) 211/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 1023
The Delhi High Court recently observed that contractual words restricting termination liability must be given effect, holding that parties to a long-term public infrastructure concession could not have inserted such limitations without intending them to operate as a cap.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Shail Jain made the observation while upholding the setting aside of an arbitral award granting ₹911.13 crore to Kurukshetra Expressway Private Limited as termination payment from the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI).
“Words of restriction and qualification deliberately incorporated into a definition clause must be given meaning and effect.", it ruled
"Their purpose is precisely to cap the outer limit of the obligation being defined...... This court is unable to accept that commercially sophisticated parties, negotiating a public infrastructure concession running into decades, inserted words of limitation into the very definition of the Respondent's termination liability without intending them to limit anything.”, it added.
Bank's Lack Of Consent No Bar To Arbitrator Appointment Under SARFAESI: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Indian Bank v. Bank of Baroda & Ors.
Case Number: ARB.P. 1191/2026; CNR No. DLHC010318142026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 1022
The Delhi High Court on 25 September held that a bank's lack of consent does not bar appointment of an arbitrator where an inter-se dispute between banks falls within the statutory arbitration mechanism under the SARFAESI Act.
Justice Om Prakash Shukla appointed Advocate Mohit Kumar Mudgal as sole arbitrator to adjudicate Indian Bank's dispute with Bank of Baroda and others over competing claims of priority and charge over certain mortgaged properties. The Bench observed:
“The absence of consent does not, in the facts of the present case, constitute an impediment to the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act. Section 11 of the SARFAESI Act constitutes a special statutory mechanism for resolution of disputes relating to securitisation, reconstruction or non-payment of amounts due, where such disputes arise between the entities specifically contemplated therein, including banks and financial institutions.”
Case Title: M/s Airport Handling Services v. Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur
Case Number: FAO (COMM) 231/2026 & CM APPL. 53142/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 1027
The Delhi High Court has ruled that a restriction in the service rules governing the President of a State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission cannot, by itself, make the person ineligible to act as an arbitrator under Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act).
A division bench of Justice Anil Khetarpal and Justice Shail Jain observed relying on ruln in Delhi Integrated Multi Modal Transit Systems Ltd. ruled, “A breach of a condition governing the office held by an arbitrator may entail consequences under the statutory or regulatory framework governing that office. Such consequence, however, cannot automatically be equated with termination of the arbitral mandate under Section 12(5), particularly when the alleged disability does not arise from any of the circumstances specified in the Seventh Schedule.”
Arbitral Tribunal Can't Reject Interim Relief Merely For Overlap With Final Relief: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Wello Retail Pvt. Ltd. v. Sant Parmanand Blind Relief Mission
Case Number: ARB. A. (COMM.) 55/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 1028
On 28 September, the Delhi High Court held that an arbitral tribunal cannot reject interim relief under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 merely because the relief sought overlaps with or is co-extensive with the final relief claimed in the arbitration.
Justice Tushar Rao Gedela allowed an appeal filed by Wello Retail Pvt. Ltd. against an order passed by the arbitrator rejecting its application under Section 17 of the Act. The Bench observed:
“At times, and having due regard to myriad situations arising in cases, certain interim orders may need to be passed so as to maintain equality and balance the contrasting rights between the parties. That grant by itself, would not, in the opinion of this Court, tantamount to or be an expression on merits of the SoC. Looked at from a different perspective, if that proposition is acceded to, then in no case can an order granting temporary injunction or any other interim relief, be granted. That is not, and cannot be the law.”
Case Title: Amazon Seller Services Private Limited v. Goodluck Buildtech Private Limited & Ors.
Case Number: O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 443/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 1031
The Delhi High Court on 28 September appointed a Local Commissioner to inspect and prepare an inventory of Amazon Seller Services Private Limited's assets lying at premises leased from Goodluck Buildtech Private Limited.
Justice Om Prakash Shukla also appointed former Supreme Court judge Justice S. Ravindra Bhat as sole arbitrator to adjudicate the lease dispute between the two parties, involving an indemnity claim of approximately Rs. 182.50 crore and fixtures and fit-outs stated to be worth around Rs. 120 crore. The Bench observed:
“In view of the parties' mutual consent to refer the dispute forming the subject matter of the present petition to arbitration, this Court considers it appropriate that commencement of arbitral proceedings shall not be delayed.
Arbitral Tribunal Cannot Permit PBG Appropriation Contrary To Contractual Terms: Delhi High Court
Case Title: ISGEC Heavy Engineering Limited v. Prakash Industries Limited
Case Number: O.M.P. (COMM) 503/2023
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 1037
The Delhi High Court on 31 August held that an arbitral tribunal cannot permit appropriation of Performance Bank Guarantee (PBG) proceeds contrary to the contractual terms governing the parties.
Justice Avneesh Jhingan was hearing a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 filed by ISGEC Heavy Engineering Limited challenging an arbitral award arising from its dispute with Prakash Industries Limited. The Bench observed:
“The tribunal permitting appropriation of the PBG proceeds towards the unproved losses and damages is without any basis and is consequently perverse. To that extent the award suffers from patent illegality.”
Delhi High Court Declines 'Eleventh Hour' Auditor Appointment In Hamdard Tax Row, Allows Arbitration
Case Title: Hammad Ahmed v. Abdul Majeed & Ors.
Case Number: EX.P. 66/2025 & EX.APPL.(OS) 1201/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 1039
On 29 September, the Delhi High Court refused to appoint an independent statutory auditor in a dispute concerning the renewal of Hamdard Laboratories India's tax-exempt registration and instead permitted Hammad Ahmed to seek appropriate directions from the arbitral tribunal.
Justice Tushar Rao Gedela found that the objections to Form 10AB were intertwined with a property segregation dispute already pending before the arbitral tribunal, and stated that appointing an independent auditor at the “eleventh hour” could “prove disastrous for both the parties”. The Bench observed:
“Since filling up and filing of Form 10AB and the objections raised by the DH are intrinsically intertwined with the segregation of properties, some of which, are admittedly subject matter of arbitration, it appears to this Court, and having due regard to the fact that there is no urgency, the prayers sought in the present application are referable to arbitration.”
Case Title: Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. v. Sh. Pankaj (Since Deceased) Thr LRs
Case Number: FAO (COMM) 23/2025 & CM APPL. 4055/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 1042
The Delhi High Court has held that the statutory ineligibility introduced for arbitrators by the 2015 amendment to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, cannot be retrospectively applied to invalidate an appointment made before the amendment came into force.
A Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetrapal and Bharat Parashar upheld the appointment of a serving Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC) employee as sole arbitrator.
The arbitration was invoked on June 3, 2014 and the arbitrator was appointed on March 24, 2015, while the amendment introducing Section 12(5) and the Seventh Schedule came into force only on October 23, 2015.
The bench observed, “Where the arbitral proceedings had commenced before 23.10.2015, the amended provisions cannot be applied merely on the ground that the circumstances attracting those provisions continued thereafter. Such proceedings remain governed by the pre-amendment regime unless the parties have otherwise agreed to the application of the amended Act within the meaning of Section 26.”
Arbitrator's Mandate Not Automatically Terminated By Expiry Of Indicative Timeline: Delhi High Court
Case Title: M.K. Construction v. Maj. Gen. Hoshiar Singh (Retd.) & Anr.
Case Number: FAO (COMM) 86/2023 & CM APPL. 17066/2023
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 1046
On 30 September, the Delhi High Court held that an arbitrator's mandate does not end merely because an indicative time period fixed by the Court for completing proceedings has expired, unless the direction imposed a mandatory deadline.
A Division Bench comprising Justices Avneesh Jhingan and Shail Jain dismissed M.K. Construction's appeal against an arbitral award in its residential construction dispute with Maj. Gen. Hoshiar Singh (Retd). It observed:
“The direction of this Court did not prescribe an inflexible or peremptory time limit for concluding the arbitral proceedings, the expiry of which by itself would terminate the mandate of the arbitrator.”
Case Title: British Marine PLC v. Steel Authority of India Ltd.
Case Number: EX. APPL. (OS) 8/2026 and EX. APPL. (OS) 19/2026 in OMP (ENF.) (COMM.) 50/2023
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 1080
The Delhi High Court has refused to release the remaining ₹213.24 crore deposited by Steel Authority of India Limited (SAIL) in enforcement proceedings initiated by British Marine PLC. The court held that the arbitral award could not be executed while it remained unstamped and the original award was not available before it.
Justice Vinod Kumar observed:
“Now the situation is that the original Award is not available before this Court. Though an arbitral Award is a chargeable instrument, as evident from Article 12 read with Article 15 to Schedule IA of The Indian Stamp (Delhi Amendment) Act 2001, the copy of the Award can neither be stamped nor can be impounded as per the Stamp Act, 1899. As already stated, unstamped Award would not be executable, therefore, the amount cannot be released to Decree Holder.”
The order, pronounced on October 1, 2026, dealt with two applications filed by British Marine in proceedings to enforce the award. SAIL had separately challenged the award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Communication On Company Letterhead Not Enough To Establish Consent To Arbitrate: Bombay High Court
Case Title: New Consolidated Construction Company Limited v. Limitless Contracting Private Limited & Ors.
Case Number: Commercial Arbitration Application (L) No. 38984 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 538
Today, the Bombay High Court held that use of a company's letterhead in project-related communications does not by itself make the company a party to another company's contract or establish its consent to the arbitration clause.
Justice Amit Borkar made the observation while referring the dispute between New Consolidated Construction Company Limited (NCCCL) and Limitless Contracting Private Limited concerning construction works at the “One Park Avenue” project in Kolshet, Thane, to arbitration, and refused to refer Man Realty and Puravankara to arbitration. The Bench observed:
“The letterhead may show from which company the communication came. But it does not show that the company became a party to another company's contract or accepted the arbitration clause contained in that contract.”
Acquiring Property Interest Alone Does Not Bind Transferee To Arbitration Clause: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Shree Satguru Developers & Ors. v. Chandrashekhar Champalal Hingarh & Ors.
Case Number: Arbitration Application (L) No. 27816 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 539
The Bombay High Court on 7 September held that acquiring an interest in property covered by a Development Agreement, by itself, does not make a transferee a party to the arbitration agreement contained in the Development Agreement.
Justice Amit Borakar added that a transferee can become bound by the arbitration clause only where material shows assignment, incorporation, acceptance or unequivocal adoption of the underlying agreement, and appointed a sole arbitrator for disputes between the developers and the original owners/confirming parties, but declined to appoint an arbitrator against the subsequent transferee. The Bench observed:
“….There is no document shown by the Applicants by which Respondent No.1 agreed to take upon the obligations of the Developer or the Owners under that agreement. The Applicants rely upon the fact that Respondent No.1 acquired rights in the Petition Property. This fact is not sufficient. Acquisition of an interest in the property and acquisition of rights under the Development Agreement are separate matters.”
Case Title: Lion Rubber Industries Private Limited & Anr. v. Santec Exim Private Limited & Ors.
Case Number: Commercial Arbitration Application (L) No. 23526 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 542
The Bombay High Court has held that a brief arbitration clause can constitute a valid and binding arbitration agreement even when it does not use words such as “shall” or “will” to expressly require disputes to be referred to arbitration.
Justice Amit Borkar observed, “The Court is not adding the word 'shall' to the contract as a new term. The Court is trying to understand the words already written in the Purchase Order in their ordinary commercial setting. The word 'Arbitration', along with the fact that there is no condition requiring fresh consent, is sufficient to show the intention to use arbitration for disputes arising from the Purchase Order."
The court was considering a plea by Lion Rubber Industries Private Limited and another for appointment of an arbitrator in a dispute arising from a Purchase Order for a Hydraulic Press.
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Case Title: Ambica Beri v. Forum Atmosphere Flat Owner's Association
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(CAL) 235
On Monday, 28 September, the Calcutta High Court held that an arbitration clause contained in a company's Articles of Association operates as an independent agreement and does not make disputes covered by the clause subject exclusively to the jurisdiction of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT).
A Division Bench comprising Justices Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Sandip Kumar De made the observation while allowing an appeal filed by Ambica Beri against the District Judge's refusal to grant interim relief. It observed:
“Since the arbitration clause is an independent contract of its own, it operates beyond the purview of the Articles of Association and is not restricted to the architecture of the 2013 Act.”
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Karnataka High Court Upholds Award Rejecting ₹1.37 Crore Contractor Claim In Mysuru Zoo Park Project
Case Title: Sri C.C. Kondaiah v. Mysore City Corporation & Anr.
Case Number: Commercial Appeal No. 82 of 2023
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(KAR) 173
The Karnataka High Court on 23 September dismissed contractor C. C. Kondaiah's appeal against the Commercial Court's decision not to interfere with an arbitral award rejecting his claims for additional expenditure, price escalation and idling costs against the Mysore City Corporation.
A Division Bench of Justices Anu Sivaraman and T.P. Vivekananda reiterated that an appellate court cannot reappreciate evidence or substitute the reasoning of an arbitral tribunal while exercising jurisdiction under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The judges observed:
“We also notice that the grounds raised by the appellant to challenge the order of the Commercial Court are essentially those falling within the realm of findings of fact. The learned Sole Arbitrator had considered the contentions of the parties and had rendered finding on such contentions. It is trite law that reappriciation of the evidence or a substitution of opinion or reasoning is not warranted in an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.”
Case Title: Sri A.N. Srinivasa Reddy v. Maarq Spaces and Properties LLP & Ors.
Case Number: COMAP No. 359 of 2026 c/w COMAP Nos. 350 and 376 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(KAR) 178
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed three appeals challenging an interim restraint on dealings with a property in Bengaluru Rural District, holding that there was no point examining the challenges when only two days remained before the 90-day protection was due to expire.
A Division Bench of Justice D.K. Singh and Justice H. Shanthi Bhushan, in an order dated September 11, noted that the restraint imposed by the Commercial Court on June 15 would expire on September 13.
The bench, therefore, held that the appeals had “lost implication”.
“This order is dated 15.06.2026. 90 days is expiring on 13.09.2026 and therefore, these appeals have lost implication. Accordingly, appeals are dismissed.”
Case Title: Vijaya Sharana Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. v. Office of Registrar of Cooperative Societies & Ors.
Case Number: WP No. 105206 of 2025 c/w WP Nos. 105173, 105207 & 105210 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(KAR) 183
The Karnataka High Court has held that arbitration under the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002 cannot be treated as invalid merely because no separate notice was issued under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum observed, “The absence of a separate notice under Section 21, in the circumstances pleaded in these petitions, does not by itself render the appointment of the learned Arbitrator under Section 84 of the MSCS Act invalid, nor does it extinguish the jurisdiction otherwise conferred upon the learned Arbitrator by the statutory scheme.”
The court was dealing with four writ petitions filed by four cold storage companies, Vijaya Sharana Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd., Sri Shyama Sundara Cold Storage, Sarveshwara Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd., and Jaya Sharana Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd.
MADRAS HIGH COURT
Madras HC Refuses Arbitrator Appointment Over Forged Clause, Says Arbitration Is 'Child Of Consent'
Case Title: Chandramouli V. v. American International School Chennai
Case Number: Arb.O.P. No. 44 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 283
The Madras High Court on 25 September refused to appoint an arbitrator in an employment dispute between former Purchase Manager Chandramouli V. and the American International School Chennai, holding that a challenge to the genuineness of the document containing the arbitration clause goes to the root of whether an Arbitral Tribunal can be constituted.
Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari observed that arbitration, being the “child of consent,” cannot proceed where the very document containing the arbitration clause is seriously and credibly alleged to be forged or fabricated. He held:
“It is trite that arbitration is the child of consent, and consent cannot be presumed into existence merely because a document bearing an arbitration clause has been produced. Where the very parentage of that document is disputed and it is alleged to be the offspring of forgery or fabrication, the dispute sheds its purely contractual character and assumes a jurisdictional dimension.”
Party Choosing Pre-Suit Mediation Must End It Before Invoking Arbitration: Madras High Court
Case Title: Grand Blue Projects Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s True Value Home India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
Case Number: O.A. No. 1010 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 286
The Madras High Court on 28 September held that a party cannot invoke the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 while pre-institution mediation proceedings it had voluntarily initiated under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 remain pending.
Justice K. Kumaresh Babu dismissed Grand Blue Projects Pvt Ltd's application under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act, seeking to restrain True Value Home India Pvt Ltd and TVH Estates Chennai Pvt Ltd from dealing with the disputed property. The Bench observed:
“This Court is of the view that the applicant, who had come before this Court cannot be allowed to invoke the provisions of the Arbitration Act without putting an end to the proceedings initiated under the Commercial Courts Act.”
Case Title Rajkumar Theatres Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s Wide Angle Creations & Ors.
Case Number OA (C.D.)No. 1050 of 2026
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 293
The Madras High Court has recently refused to restrain the worldwide release and exploitation of the Hindi remake of Malayalam film Drishyam 3, starring Ajay Devgn. It held that Rajkumar Theatres had not clearly established that it continued to hold an exclusive or joint copyright in the Hindi remake rights.
Justice K. Govindarajan Thilakavadi dismissed Rajkumar Theatres' application on October 1, 2026. The company had sought interim protection against the film's release pending arbitration.
The court noted that the injunction sought would, in substance, prevent the worldwide release and exploitation of the Hindi remake. It observed that such an order could have “serious consequences” for rights claimed by the respondents and third parties under subsequent arrangements.
The court found that Rajkumar had not placed sufficient material to establish its continuing rights in the Hindi remake.
“The material presently placed before this Court does not, at this interlocutory stage, establish with sufficient clarity that the applicant continues to possess an exclusive or joint copy right in the Hindi remake rights of 'Drishyam 3'.”
Case Title M. Jothi v. The Project Director, National Highways Authority of India & Others; Tmt. Ambika v. The Project Director, National Highways Authority of India & Others
Case Number CMA Nos. 2496 and 3140 of 2021
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 292
The Madras High Court has restored arbitral awards enhancing compensation for land acquired for a national highway, holding that the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) could not rely on a technical objection over notice despite having knowledge of the arbitration proceedings.
The court questioned why NHAI had remained a “lame duck” despite knowing about the proceedings and held that a public authority could not take such a technical ground to deny landowners their rights under Article 300A of the Constitution.
Justice K. Kumaresh Babu, allowing appeals filed by the landowners, M. Jothi and Ambika, set aside the Principal District Judge, Villupuram's January 11, 2021 order and affirmed the arbitral awards enhancing their compensation.
The court observed, “Having knowledge of the said proceedings before the Arbitrator, taking a technical ground to deny the rights envisaged under Article 300 A that too by a public authority could not be appreciated. The 1st respondent had not explained as to why it has remained a lame duck after having knowledge of the proceedings.”
GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Case Title: Indus Towers Limited v. Bilkishbanu Tofiqhussain Lokhandwala & Anr.
Case Number: R/First Appeal No. 1662 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(GUJ) 141
The Gujarat High Court on 24 September held that recasting an arbitral claim from “rent” as “mesne profits” does not amount to patent illegality warranting interference with an award when the monetary liability remains unchanged.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice D.N. Ray dismissed Indus Towers' challenge to an arbitral award directing it to pay the landowners Rs. 25,800 per month, with contractual escalation, until it handed over vacant possession, describing the objection to the characterisation of the claim as “essentially on semantics”. The judges observed:
“We are, however, of the further opinion that the mere qualitative change in the nature of the claim (mesne profit vis-a-vis rent), the quantum being exactly the same, even if accepted to be an error of law for the sake of arguments, would not constitute either a patent illegality or against the fundamental policy of India law, which would warrant an interference by the Court under Section 34 and much less by us under Section 37 of the Act, 1996.”
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Case Title: Marudhara Primeinfra Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s Lahoty Buildcon Limited & Ors.
Case Number: S.B. Civil Writ Petition Nos. 19263/2026 & 18418/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(RAJ) 52
The Rajasthan High Court has held that an application seeking interim relief in aid of arbitration cannot be rejected at the threshold under Order VII Rule 11 merely on an objection that it covers two separate agreements containing separate arbitration clauses.
Justice Anand Sharma observed, “The question whether two agreements are wholly independent or are interrelated is not necessarily capable of determination merely by looking at the title of the agreements or the fact that they contain separate arbitration clauses. The contractual scheme, nature of obligations, interdependence, subject matter and the interim relief sought may all become relevant. Consequently, it would be inappropriate at this stage for this Court, in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to record a final finding on that controversy when the competent Court has consciously kept it open.”