Nominal Index
R. Savithri Naidu v. The Cotton Corporation of India Ltd. & Anr., 2026 LLBiz SC 66
Aspek Media Pvt Ltd & Ors. vs Entertainment City Ltd, 2026 LLBiz SC 68
Rashtriya Chemicals & Fertilisers Ltd vs Thermax Ltd, 2026 LLBiz SC 70
Asad Mueed & Ors. vs Jamia Hamdard Deemed to Be University, 2026 LLBiz SC 65
Talwandi Sabo Power Ltd vs Punjab State Power Corporation, 2026 LLBiz SC 72
A2Z Infraservices Ltd & Anr vs Quippo Infrastructure Ltd & Ors, 2026 LLBiz SC 60
National Highways Authority of India vs Vadodara Mumbai Expressway PKG-08 Pvt Ltd, 2026 LLBiz SC 59
E-City Real Estates Pvt Ltd & Anr vs IMAX Corporation & Ors, 2026 LLBiz SC 22
Ankhim Holdings Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. vs Zaveri Construction Pvt. Ltd., 2026 LLBiz SC 53
J. Muthurajan & Anr. vs S. Vaikundarajan & Ors., 2026 LLBiz SC 57
C. Velusamy v. K. Indhera, 2026 LLBiz SC 39
Eminent Colonizers Private Limited v. Rajasthan Housing Board & Ors., 2026 LLBiz SC 48
Rajia Begum vs Barnali Mukherjee, 2026 LLBiz SC 36
BWL Limited (formerly Bhilai Wires Ltd.) v. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, 2026 LLBiz SC 81
Vedanta Limited (Cairn Oil and Gas Division) v. Gujarat State Petroleum Corporation Ltd., 2026 LLBiz SC 89
Union of India & Ors. v. Larsen & Toubro Limited, 2026 LLBiz SC 97
Mahajan Imaging Pvt Ltd v. Pushpawati Singhania Research Institute & Anr., 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 209
Ansal Housing Limited v. SS Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 168
Parsvnath Developers Limited & Ors. v. Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 171
Puri Constructions Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. Larsen & Toubro Ltd., 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 119
Fresh and Healthy Enterprise Ltd v. Global AgriSystem Pvt Ltd, 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 140
Hala Kamel Zabal v. Arya Trading Ltd & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 120
Airports Authority of India v. URC Construction (P) Ltd, 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 146
Dusters Total Solutions Services Pvt. Ltd. v. All India Institute of Medical Sciences, 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 121
Gorkha Security Services v. Directorate of Health Services, 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 105
Avneet Soni v. Kavita Agarwal, 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 108
Union of India v. Reliance Industries Ltd. & Anr., 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 11
M/s Telexcell Information Systems Limited v Tata Advanced Systems Limited, 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 177
Divya Ashish Jamwal v. India Yamaha Motor Pvt Ltd, 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 189
Geniemode Global Pvt. Ltd. v. Priyanka Impex Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 192
Railways Board, Ministry of Railways v. Titagarh Rail Systems Limited, 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 202
Zreyah Semiconductors Pvt. Ltd. v. Oyo Hotels and Homes Pvt. Ltd., 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 107
Steel Authority of India Limited v. M/s Primetals Technologies India Pvt. Limited, 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 190
Union of India v. M/s Rama Constructions Company, 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 201
Sagar Asia Private Limited v. Mr. V. Agastya Sagar & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC (TEL) 6
M/s Bhagyalakshmi Homes LLP v. Sulekha Verma and Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 21
Mobisy Technologies Pvt Ltd v. M/s J G Hosiery Pvt Ltd, 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 20
M/s Re Sustainability Healthcare Solutions Limited v. Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike and Anr., 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 14
M/s Annai Builders Real Estate Pvt Ltd v. G.B. Sarath Kumar, 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 51
Volleyball Federation of India v. Baseline Ventures (India) Pvt. Ltd., 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 50
Sivashankar & Co. vs The Divisional Railway Manager, 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 48
B.M. Insulation Private Limited v. Vardeep Petro Chemical Private Limited, 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 41
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Rajkumar Impex Private Ltd., 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 40
MIOT Hospitals Private Limited v. Dr. Balaraman Palaniappan, 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 55
GPE (India) Ltd and Ors v. Twarit Consultancy Services Private Ltd and Ors, 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 54
Thomas Varghese v. M/s Sundaram Finance Limited & Anr., 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 57
State of Maharashtra vs Morya Infrastructure Pvt Ltd Beed, 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 86
Dealmoney Commodities Pvt. Ltd. v. Vijay Vithal Sawant & Anr., 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 81
A. Navinchandra Steel Private Limited & Ors. v. Board of Directors of Abhyudaya Co-Op. Bank Ltd. & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 79
The Commissioner, Solapur Municipal Corporation & Ors. v. M/s S.M.C.-G.E.C.P. Ltd (JV), 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 72
Shree Dev Shasan Jain Shwetambar Murtipujak Trust v. Veer Tower CHS Ltd., 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 73
Tata Capital Housing Financing Ltd vs Inderjeet Sahni and others, 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 58
Union of India v. M/s. Bridge Track And Tower Pvt. Ltd., 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 62
Jinam Arihant Realtors And Ors. v. Neha Yogesh Sachde, 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 65
Rashtriya Chemicals & Fertilizers Limited Vs. Thermax Limited, 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 56
Nirmal Bang Securities Pvt Ltd vs Shashi Mehra HUF, 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 59
Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority v. Mumbai Metro One Private Limited, 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 97
Khimchand Prithviraj Kothari Versus M/s. Earth Realtors, 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 94
Union of India v. M/s K.K. Enterprises Contractors, 2026 LLBiz HC (JAM) 3
The Highways Authority of India vs Rano Devi & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC (JAM) 6
S.D. Bhat vs Hindustan Construction Company Ltd (HCC Ltd) & Anr., 2026 LLBiz HC (JAM) 5
H.P. Singh & Co. Vs Union of India & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC (JAM) 4
BSCPL Infrastructure Ltd vs Public Works Department (Roads), 2026 LLBiz HC (MEG) 1
Alok Saraf & Ors. vs Shyam Sundar Nangalia & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 54
India Media Services Private Limited v. SBPL Infrastructure Limited, 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 53
Akankha Nirman Private Limited & Anr. v. M/s. Supreme Construction & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 51
National Insurance Company Limited v. Tirupati Food Products, 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 45
Prime Projects v. Prajnanananda Jana Seva Sangha & Anr., 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 47
Indrani Sarangi v. Reliance Projects And Property Management Service Limited & Anr., 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 46
Turner Morrison Limited v. Berger Paints India Limited, 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 36
Managing Director Bihar State Power Generation Company Ltd & Anr vs RS Construction & Anr, 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 43
Tata Capital Ltd vs Arvind Manjhi, 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 44
Jimmy Elias v. Elizabeth Jasmine and Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC (KER) 21
Aditya Birla Fashion and Retail Limited v. Dayanand, 2026 LLBiz HC (PNH) 9
Aggarwal Sons v. Union of India and Others, 2026 LLBiz HC (PNH) 8
Ankit Enterprises vs. M/S Shri Ram Sunil Kumar & Anr., 2026 LLBiz HC (PAT) 5
The New India Assurance Company Limited v. Krishna City Hospital and Anr., 2026 LLBiz HC (PAT) 4
Progressive Construction Company v. Engineer-in-Chief, PWD, 2026 LLBiz HC (ALL) 18
Supreme Court
Case Title : R. Savithri Naidu v. The Cotton Corporation of India Ltd. & Anr.
Case Number : Civil Appeal No. 1602/2026 [Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 19779 of 2024]
Citation : 2026 LLBiz SC 66
The Supreme Court has reaffirmed that a person who purchases disputed property after the passing of an arbitral award cannot obstruct its attachment in execution proceedings. A Bench of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti warned that permitting such objections would derail the execution process, causing proceedings to get trapped “in an infinite loop and practically never get completed,” and reducing decrees to mere “paper tigers.”
The court emphasised its ruling in Jini Dhanrajgir v. Shibu Mathew (2023), that "winning a case is meaningless unless the winner actually gets the relief they sought,” and stressed that the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure “must be employed to secure actual relief, not just a formal decree.” Rejecting the appeal, the Court held that for the purposes of Order XXI Rule 102 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the relevant date is the institution of the proceedings and not merely the pendency of a challenge to the award.
Case Title : Aspek Media Pvt Ltd & Ors. vs Entertainment City Ltd
Case Number : SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No. 3190/2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz SC 68
The Supreme Court dismissed a special leave petition filed by Aspek Media Pvt. Ltd. and others against Entertainment City Limited, declining to interfere with a Delhi High Court order in an arbitration matter.
A Bench of Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Atul S. Chandurkar said: “After hearing learned counsel, we see no reason and ground to interfere with the order impugned. Accordingly, the special leave petition is dismissed.”
Justice Jasmeet Singh held that there were “clear findings of diversion of funds” by the directors and distinguished earlier precedents relied upon by the judgment debtor.
The Court allowed the application, directed the impleadment of Harish Choudhary and Dharamvir Choudhary, Directors of Aspek Media Pvt. Ltd., and ordered them to file affidavits of assets from financial year 2014-15 onwards in terms of Order XXI Rule 41(2) CPC.
Case Title : Rashtriya Chemicals & Fertilisers Ltd vs Thermax Ltd
Case Number : Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 6365/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz SC 70
The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed a special leave petition filed by Rashtriya Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd (RCF) challenging a Bombay High Court order that refused to allow it to retain Rs. 218.45 crore deposited by Thermax Ltd after an arbitral award in its favour was set aside. A bench of Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Alok Aradhe declined to interfere with the January 28, 2026 order of the High Court's division bench.
The Court observed, “While we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the High Court, we make it clear that the petitioner shall deposit the amount as directed, within four weeks from today.” With these observations, the special leave petition was dismissed.
The division bench had held that once the arbitral award dated June 5, 2023 was set aside, there was no arbitral award in existence and, therefore, RCF could not claim any right over the amount deposited as a condition for stay of the award.
Case Title : Asad Mueed & Ors. vs Jamia Hamdard Deemed to Be University
Case Number : PETITION(S) FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (C) NO(S).3280/2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz SC 65
The Supreme Court deemed the Consent of Affiliation to have been granted by Jamia Hamdard Deemed to be University to Hamdard Institute of Medical Sciences & Research (HIMSR), after noting that 49 postgraduate students had already been admitted pursuant to its earlier interim directions.
A Bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan said the consent would be treated as granted, subject to the final outcome of the Special Leave Petition.
“In the circumstances, we observe that since there has been admission of as many as forty nine students in the third petitioner-College, the consent of affiliation is deemed to have been granted by the first respondent University in favour of the third respondent-University subject to the result of this Special Leave Petition.”, the court said.
On appeal, the high court observed that an executing court cannot travel beyond the arbitral mandate or adjudicate complex regulatory issues reserved for statutory authorities. It held that compliance must be subject to applicable statutory regimes and that enforcement cannot override decisions of competent regulatory bodies.
Case Title : Talwandi Sabo Power Ltd vs Punjab State Power Corporation
Case Number : Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 6462/2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz SC 72
The Supreme Court has recently refused to interfere with a Punjab and Haryana High Court decision dismissing a writ petition filed by Vedanta Group company Talwandi Sabo Power Ltd against an arbitral tribunal's order that held part of its claim fell outside the scope of arbitration in its dispute with Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd (PSPCL). A bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and K. Vinod Chandran dismissed the special leave petition.
The Court said, “The special leave petition is, accordingly, dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioner, Talwandi Sabo Power Ltd., to take recourse to the remedy referred to in paragraph-13 of the impugned judgment/order in accordance with law.”
It held that an effective statutory remedy was available and that writ jurisdiction cannot ordinarily be invoked in such circumstances. The High Court imposed costs of Rs 50 thousand on the company and directed that the amount be deposited with the High Court Legal Services Committee within three months.
Direction To Deposit Proceeds In Escrow Warranted Only In Limited Circumstances: Supreme Court
Case Title : A2Z Infraservices Ltd & Anr vs Quippo Infrastructure Ltd & Ors
Case Number : Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.8636/2021
Citation: 2026 LLBiz SC 60
The Supreme Court has held that a direction to deposit proceeds in an escrow account cannot be issued as a matter of routine in arbitration dispute.
The court observed that such an arrangement is ordinarily warranted only where the underlying contract providing for escrow is subsisting or where there is material to show that the party receiving the money is likely to divert it and lacks sufficient assets to satisfy the award if it goes against it.
A Bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Manmohan allowed an appeal filed by A2Z Infraservices Ltd, setting aside a Calcutta High Court order which had directed deposit of contractual receipts into an escrow account during the pendency of arbitration proceedings.
“Ordinarily, a direction to deposit the proceeds in an Escrow Account is to be made where either the contract between the parties envisaging such arrangement is subsisting or the party who is to receive the money is likely to divert it and, if allowed to do so, has insufficient assets to make good the amount in case the award goes against it. In short, the purpose of directing such an arrangement is to ensure the execution of the award ultimately passed,” the Court observed.
Case Title : National Highways Authority of India vs Vadodara Mumbai Expressway PKG-08 Pvt Ltd
Case Number : Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos.622-623 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz SC 59
The Supreme Court has modified a Delhi High Court order that had directed the National Highways Authority of India to deposit the entire arbitral award of over Rs. 1,019 crore in its dispute with Vadodara Mumbai Expressway PKG-08 Pvt. Ltd., and instead ordered it to deposit 50% of the total amount referred to in its order.
A bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K.V. Viswanathan was hearing special leave petitions arising out of the High Court's November 19, 2025 order passed in proceedings under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
“We modify the order passed by the High Court to the extent that NHAI shall deposit 50% of the total amount referred to above with the Registry of the Delhi High Court within a period of eight weeks from today.” the Court directed.
The High Court had directed NHAI to deposit Rs 5,32,78,50,000 awarded for Phase VIII and Rs 4,86,24,13,440 awarded for Phase IX, aggregating Rs 101,902,633,440. The Supreme Court noted that with interest the amount came to Rs. 1,197,72,60,596 as on February 9, 2026. The awards were granted in favour of the concessionaire towards adjusted equity.
Case Title : E-City Real Estates Pvt Ltd & ANR vs IMAX Corporation & Ors
Case Number : Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.2537/2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz SC 22
The Supreme Court of India on Wednesday appointed former apex court judge Justice Abhay S. Oka as mediator to explore the possibility of settlement between IMAX Corporation and the E-City Group in their dispute concerning enforcement of foreign arbitral awards. The court was hearing the matter arising out of the Bombay High Court's December 2025 judgment reviving enforcement proceedings in favour of IMAX.
A bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K.V. Viswanathan was further informed that the hearing on merits would require at least a full day of arguments and would take considerable time. In view of the pendency of the matter and the prolonged history of the dispute, the court deemed it appropriate to explore the possibility of an amicable resolution. “We are of the view having regards to the fact that this litigation between the parties is now two decades old. They should make all possible endevours to sit, talk and try to arrive at some equitable settlement. In such circumstances, we appoint Hon'ble Justice Abhay Oka, former judge of this court to act as mediator between the parties.”, the court said.
High Courts Cannot Nullify Prior Arbitral Proceedings While Substituting Arbitrator: Supreme Court
Case Title : Ankhim Holdings Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. versus Zaveri Construction Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL NO. 779/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz SC 53
The Supreme Court of India has observed hat while appointing a substitute arbitrator under Section 15(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, High Courts cannot invalidate prior arbitral proceedings or orders. A Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K.V. Viswanathan set aside a portion of an order passed by the Bombay High Court, which, while appointing a substitute arbitrator, had declared arbitral proceedings conducted on seven dates between March 17, 2022 and August 25, 2022, to be void on the ground that they were undertaken during the insolvency moratorium.
“The proper and legal course for the High Court acting under Section 15(2) of the Act, 1996, should have been to appoint a substitute arbitrator to continue from the existing stage of the proceedings,” the Court observed.
The Court held that the High Court, while acting under Section 15(2), could not set aside an order rejecting a jurisdictional objection under Section 16, nor could it nullify interim orders passed under Section 17, except through the appellate mechanism prescribed under Section 37 of the Act.
Case Title : J. Muthurajan & Anr. vs S. Vaikundarajan & Ors.
Case Number : Special Leave Petition (C) No.16254 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz SC 57
The Supreme Court has restored a civil suit challenging a family partition deed and an alleged conciliation award, observing that any conciliation conducted in accordance with Part III of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 would attain the status and effect of an award unless the parties have expressly agreed to exclude its application.
"On a reading of Section 61, any conciliation between two parties brought about by following the procedure in Part III of the Act of 1996 would definitely get the status and effect of an Award under the Act of 1996 unless the parties have agreed otherwise; which agreement should be expressly for the exclusion of Part III of the Act of 1996, despite a conciliation having been proceeded with and concluded,” the Court observed.
A Bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and K. Vinod Chandran allowed appeals filed by J. Muthurajan and another, representing the Jegatheesan group, challenging the rejection of their partition suit. Setting aside the orders of the trial court and the Madras High Court, which had rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, the Court held, “The grounds of coercion, undue influence and more importantly misrepresentation, resulting in an inequitable partition, cannot be peremptorily rejected while considering an application under Order VII, Rule 11 of the CPC.”
Case Title : C. Velusamy v. K. Indhera
Case Number : SLP (C) NO(S). 6551 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz SC 39
The Supreme Court on Tuesday (February 3) held that arbitral awards delivered beyond the statutory timeline prescribed under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, do not automatically become ineffective. The Court clarified that such awards remain ineffective and unenforceable at that stage but may still be given effect if a party approaches the competent court seeking an extension of the arbitral tribunal's mandate under Section 29A. “…we are of the opinion that provisions of the Act, particularly Section 29A, must not be interpreted to infer a threshold bar for an application under Section 29A(5) for extension of the mandate of the arbitrator even when an award is passed, though after the expiry of the mandate,” observed a Bench comprising Justices P.S. Narasimha and Atul S. Chandurkar.
Case Title : Eminent Colonizers Private Limited v. Rajasthan Housing Board & Ors.
Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL NO. 753 OF 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz SC 48
The Supreme Court on February 4th, reaffirmed that parties who accept a court order appointing an arbitrator under the pre-2015 arbitration regime cannot later challenge the existence or validity of the arbitration clause while assailing the arbitral award. The ruling was delivered by a bench comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K.V. Viswanathan. Under the law as it stood before the 2015 amendments, the Chief Justice or the designated judge exercising powers under Section 11 was required to undertake a judicial determination of jurisdictional issues, including whether a valid arbitration agreement existed. That determination, the court reiterated, attained finality under Section 11(7) and bound the parties through all subsequent stages of the dispute, including challenges under Section 34. The Court relied on the precedent in SBP & Co. v. Patel Engineering Ltd. (2005), which settled that once a Section 11 appointment is accepted, parties cannot later reopen questions surrounding the arbitration agreement's existence or validity before either the arbitral tribunal or the courts. As a result, the Supreme Court held that the lower courts had exceeded their jurisdiction by reopening issues already settled at the Section 11 stage. The court observed that the order appointing the arbitrator had attained finality and that, having accepted that order, the respondents were precluded from questioning the existence or validity of the arbitration agreement at the Section 34 stage.
Case Title : Rajia Begum vs Barnali Mukherjee
Case Number : SLP (C) NO.6013 OF 2021
Citation : 2026 LLBiz SC 36
The Supreme Court observed that disputes cannot be referred to arbitration when the very existence of the arbitration agreement is in question, particularly where the document relied upon is alleged to be forged. A bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe said courts must first satisfy themselves that an arbitration agreement actually exists before sending parties to arbitration. The court clarified that challenges going to the root of the arbitration clause itself take the dispute outside the arbitral process. It held, “Thus, in a case where plea is taken with regard to nonexistence of an arbitration clause or agreement, the same would amount to serious allegation of fraud and would render the subject matter of an agreement non-arbitrable.” Further, as the bench put it, “Where the arbitration agreement itself is alleged to be forged or fabricated, the disputes ceases to be merely contractual and strikes at the very root of arbitral jurisdiction.” Holding that the High Court had exceeded its supervisory powers by overturning concurrent findings of fact, the Supreme Court set aside the order referring the dispute to arbitration and upheld the refusal to appoint an arbitrator, leaving the matter to be decided by the civil court.
Case Title : BWL Limited (formerly Bhilai Wires Ltd.) v. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited
Case Number : SLP 6447/2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz SC 81
The Supreme Court on Friday refused to interfere with a Delhi High Court ruling declaring that a 2000 arbitral award in favour of BWL Limited against Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited stands satisfied, concluding the dispute between the parties over the computation of post-award interest.
Dismissing a Special Leave Petition, a bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe observed, “We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court.”
Rejecting the contention that post-award interest was payable on the pendente lite interest, the High Court held, “In my opinion, the Supreme Court did not modify the direction passed by the Division Bench directing payment of interest only on the principal amount. The only modification effected by the Supreme Court was in respect of the period for which the post-award interest was payable.”
Supreme Court Upholds Delhi HC Refusal To Recall Arbitrator In Vedanta–GSPC Gas Block Dispute
Case Title : VEDANTA LIMITED (CAIRN OIL AND GAS DIVISION) VERSUS GUJARAT STATE PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD.
Case Number : Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 5072/2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz SC 89
The Supreme Court on Tuesday dismissed special leave petitions in the dispute between Vedanta Ltd (Cairn Oil & Gas Division) and Gujarat State Petroleum Corporation Ltd (GSPC). The court refused to interfere with the Delhi High Court's order declining to recall its earlier Section 11 appointment of an arbitrator and rejecting a related modification plea.
Dismissing the petitions, a bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Manmohan observed, “We do not find a good ground to interfere with the impugned order/judgment in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the special leave petitions stand dismissed.”
Vedanta had also sought modification of the court's direction on arbitrator fees. That application was dismissed as well.
The January 23, 2026 order of the High Court was challenged before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court declined to interfere and dismissed the petitions.
Case Title : Union of India & Ors. v. Larsen & Toubro Limited
Case Number : Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 14989 of 2023
Citation : 2026 LLBiz SC 97
The Supreme Court on Friday held that an arbitral tribunal cannot award pre-award or pendente lite interest when the contract expressly bars payment of interest, even if such amounts are granted in the guise of compensation.
A Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi ruled that “The provisions of the Act of 1996, including provisions contained in Section 31(7)(a) give paramount importance to the contract entered into between the parties and categorically restrict the power of an arbitrator to award pre-award/pendente lite interest when the parties have themselves agreed to the contrary."
The Court held, “Pre-award and post-award interest operate in distinct fields and a contractual bar applicable to the former cannot, by implication, be extended to the latter, and thus, any exclusion of post-award interest must be explicit and unambiguous.”
High Courts
Delhi High Court
Contracts Terminable For Breach With Cure Period Not Determinable: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Mahajan Imaging Pvt Ltd v. Pushpawati Singhania Research Institute & Anr.
Case Number: O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 29/2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 209
The Delhi High Court has recently observed that a contract which permits termination only for material breach and subject to a mandatory cure period is not “in its nature determinable” under Section 14(d) of the Specific Relief Act. Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar stayed the operation and effect of the termination notice dated January 2, 2026, issued by Pushpawati Singhania Research Institute (PSRI) to Mahajan Imaging Pvt Ltd. He also directed both sides to maintain status quo until the dispute is decided through arbitration.
Jurisdiction Clause In Umbrella Agreement Prevails Over Later Contract: Delhi High Court
Case Title : Ansal Housing Limited v. SS Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd. & Anr with Connected Matter
Case Number : O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 43/2026 & 44/2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 168
The Delhi High Court has recently ruled that when an umbrella agreement fixes a venue in one city but expressly confers jurisdiction on courts in another, the jurisdiction clause will prevail unless the parties clearly alter the juridical seat for the entire transaction.
Dismissing two petitions filed by Ansal Housing Limited seeking interim relief under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar ruled that courts at Meerut, and not Delhi, had territorial jurisdiction.
Explaining the principle, the Court observed, “Where the umbrella agreement consciously designates a venue in one city and subjects itself to the jurisdiction of courts in another, the latter cannot be eclipsed absent a clear and unequivocal stipulation altering the juridical seat for the entire transaction"
No Concluded Contract, No Interim Relief: Delhi High Court Dismisses Developer's Plea Against ARCIL
Case Title : Parsvnath Developers Limited & Ors. v. Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited & Ors.
Case Number : O.M.P. (I) (COMM) 330/2025 & O.M.P. (I) (COMM) 367/2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 171
The Delhi High Court has dismissed Parsvnath Developers' plea seeking enforcement of an alleged Rs. 750 crore restructuring agreement against Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited, holding that courts cannot compel parties to honour a settlement that never matured into a concluded contract.
Justice Jasmeet Singh held that the draft restructuring agreement remained at a negotiatory stage. Although drafts were exchanged, essential terms were unsettled. The schedules were marked preliminary and subject to internal approval. Several material particulars were left blank.
In these circumstances, the court held, “In the absence of a concluded agreement, the foundational basis for the reliefs sought in the present petition collapses
Delhi High Court Reiterates Referral Court Cannot Limit Arbitrator To Specific Claims
Case Title : Puri Constructions Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. Larsen & Toubro Ltd.
Case Number : ARB.P. 1610/2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 119
The Delhi High Court recently reiterated that a Referral Court under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, cannot dictate which disputes an arbitrator should hear. Its role is limited to appointing an arbitrator, leaving all substantive claims and defences for the arbitrator to decide. Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar imposed costs of Rs. 50,000 on Puri Constructions, the petitioner, for attempting to restrict the arbitration to selective claims while appointing Hon'ble Justice Mukul Mudgal (Retired) as the sole arbitrator in its long-standing dispute with Larsen & Toubro (L&T). The Bench held: “The queue for justice stretches several decades, and Counsel and litigants who can afford to litigate endlessly, in the opinion of this Court, would need a timely reminder to respect the cause of justice to all litigants and cooperate with the judicial system.”
Case Title : Fresh and Healthy Enterprise Ltd v. Global AgriSystem Pvt Ltd & connected matter
Case Number : O.M.P. (COMM) 174/2016 & O.M.P. (COMM) 181/2016
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 140
The Delhi High Court on 11 February upheld an arbitral award directing Fresh and Healthy Enterprises Ltd (FHEL) to pay over Rs. 80 lakh in damages to Global AgriSystem Pvt Ltd (GAPL) for failure to maintain agreed storage conditions, while also confirming FHEL's entitlement to over Rs. 87 lakh towards rental and handling charges.
A Single Bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh dismissed cross-petitions filed by both companies, while reiterated that courts exercising jurisdiction under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 cannot reassess factual findings of an arbitral tribunal if they represent a reasonable and plausible view.
Justice Singh held: "The findings of the Sole Arbitrator are a reasonable and plausible view and this Court under Section 34 petition is not to reassess the findings on facts if the same are reasonable". Finding no perversity in the Arbitrator's factual assessment, the Court held that the award was neither “in contravention with the public policy of India” nor “patently illegal.”
Case Title : Hala Kamel Zabal v. Arya Trading Ltd & Ors.
Case Number : FAO(OS)(COMM) 230/2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 120
The Delhi High Court has refused to set aside a 2012 arbitral award after a shareholder argued that the arbitrator was wrongly appointed by the High Court instead of the Supreme Court in an international commercial arbitration. Rejecting the challenge, the court held that the Arbitration and Conciliation Act does not permit annulment of an award merely because of a dispute over which court appointed the arbitrator.
"Section 34(2)(a)(v) does not contemplate the setting aside of an arbitral award solely on the ground that the arbitrator was appointed by an authority allegedly lacking competence. The said provision is narrowly tailored and permits interference only where the composition of the arbitral tribunal or the arbitral procedure was not in accordance with the agreement of the parties, unless such agreement itself is in conflict with a non-derogable provision of Part I of the A&C Act. In the absence of such a conflict, irregularities, if any, in the appointment process do not, ipso facto, vitiate the arbitral award,” the court said.
Case Title : Airports Authority of India v. URC Construction (P) Ltd
Case Number : O.M.P. (COMM) 348/2019
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 146
The Delhi High Court dismissed a challenge by the Airports Authority of India (AAI) and upheld an arbitral award directing it to pay Rs. 2.57 Crore with interest and Rs 7 lakh as costs to URC Construction (P) Ltd. The Court held that the 477-day delay in constructing a new control tower-cum-technical block at Mangalore International Airport was attributable to AAI.
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna held that the arbitrator's findings were based on a detailed analysis of the record and could not be interfered with under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. “The conclusion that the delay of 477 days was attributable to the Petitioner is based on a detailed analysis of the hindrance register, site constraints, and the conduct of the parties. This finding is neither perverse nor illegal,” the Court observed.
Case Title : Dusters Total Solutions Services Pvt. Ltd. v. All India Institute of Medical Sciences
Case Number : FAO (COMM) 132/2024
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 121
The Delhi High Court has upheld an arbitral award permitting the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, to encash 50% of a contractor's Performance Bank Guarantee after short payment of wages to sanitation workers was established. A Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Amit Mahajan held that neither the arbitral award nor the district court's order dismissing objections to it suffered from perversity or patent illegality warranting interference. The court noted that the contractor, Dusters Total Solutions Services Pvt. Ltd., failed to ensure full payment of wages to its workers. The sanitation workers were deployed at AIIMS under the outsourcing contract, though they were formally employed by the contractor. This exposed AIIMS to statutory liability under Section 21(4) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. The provision makes the principal employer responsible for paying the full wages, or any unpaid balance, if the contractor fails to do so. Upholding the arbitral tribunal's reasoning, the bench observed that permitting partial encashment of the performance security reflected an effort “to balance contractual consequences with the nature and gravity of the breaches established on record”.
Delhi High Court Sets Aside Part Of Arbitral Award Over 'Cryptic Observations'
Case Title : Gorkha Security Services v. Directorate of Health Services
Case Number : O.M.P. (COMM) 453/2017
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 105
The Delhi High Court recently held that an arbitral tribunal cannot reject a claim through "cryptic" reasoning and that such an award is open to interference even within the limited scope of review under arbitration law. The matter was decided by Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, who emphasised that giving reasons is a core requirement of arbitral decision-making. “The insistence on reasons is not a mere empty formality,” the Court said, adding that reasons must show how the decision-maker moved from facts to conclusions. The court noted that the arbitrator did not analyze any contractual provision or explain how such a gap defeated the claim. “Such cryptic observations, unsupported by intelligible reasoning, render the findings opaque and unintelligible,” the Court held. Applying the doctrine of severability, the court set aside only the portion of the award denying interest and costs, left the Rs 3.48 crore award intact, and remanded the limited issue to the arbitral tribunal for fresh consideration.
Case Title : Avneet Soni v. Kavita Agarwal
Case Number : EX.P. 386/2015
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 108
The Delhi High Court has imposed Rs 1 lakh in costs on a litigant for what it called a “calculated attempt” to stall enforcement of a decade-old arbitral award. Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar dismissed the objection application, holding that repeated attempts to delay execution, as in the present case, cannot be justified as an exercise of legal rights. The court underscored that the award, passed on December 31, 2014, had already attained finality. “The approach adopted by the Objector reflects a calculated attempt to obstruct and delay the enforcement of a decree which has already been conclusively adjudicated and is legally binding. Such conduct, if condoned, undermines the efficacy of judicial processes and the faith of litigants in the rule of law,” the bench said. “Repeated invocation of the same ground, more than ten years after the filing of the Execution Petition and over eleven years after the Award was rendered, cannot be regarded as a genuine or bona fide exercise of legal rights. Rather, it reflects a deliberate attempt to obstruct the enforcement of a valid and binding arbitral award, thereby clogging the machinery of justice,” the Court further held.
Delhi High Court Rejects Reliance Industries' Objections To Centre's Appeal In $3.86 Billion Dispute
Case Title : Union of India v. Reliance Industries Ltd. & Anr.
Case Number : EFA(OS)(COMM) 19/2023
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 11
The Delhi High Court on Monday ruled that the Centre's appeal against the refusal to enforce a foreign arbitral award in a $3.86 billion dispute with Reliance Industries can proceed. The court rejected RIL's objections to the Centre's appeal against a single judge order refusing to enforce the foreign arbitral award. The dispute relates to production sharing contracts for the Tapti and Panna Mukta oil and gas fields and a claim of USD 3,856,734,582. A Division Bench of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Madhu Jain held that an order declining enforcement of a foreign arbitral award falls under Section 48 of the Act and is appealable under Section 50. The Bench said, "The words of the legislature must be construed in their natural meaning, without adding or subtracting therefrom. Applying the above test, the words of Section 50(1)(b) of the A&C Act provide for an appeal against the order of a court refusing to enforce a Foreign Award under Section 48 of the A&C Act, which is the case in hand. Therefore, the present appeal is maintainable
Expiry Of Arbitrator's Mandate Due To Lapse Of Time Does Not End Arbitration: Delhi High Court
Case Title : M/s Telexcell Information Systems Limited v Tata Advanced Systems Limited
Case Number : O.M.P (MISC.)(COMM.) 832/2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 177
The Delhi High Court has observed that when an arbitrator's mandate expires due to lapse of time, it does not amount to termination of proceedings under Section 32, Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
A Single-Judge Bench of Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar additionally held that the expiry of mandate by lapse of time is curable and extended the arbitrator's mandate for a further period of six months from the date of the order for making the arbitral award.
The Court noted “...that both parties are ad idem that the pleadings in the arbitration stand completed and that the matter has reached the stage of evidence. In such circumstances, the interests of justice would be better served by facilitating the continuation and culmination of the arbitral proceedings rather than relegating the parties to a fresh round of litigation.”
Delhi High Court Sets Aside Award Ordering Yamaha To Repurchase Unsold Dealership Stock
Case Title : Divya Ashish Jamwal v. India Yamaha Motor Pvt Ltd
Case Number : FAO(OS) (COMM) 363/2019
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 189
Holding that an arbitral tribunal cannot “rewrite the bargain between the parties” or grant relief contrary to the contract, the Delhi High Court on Tuesday upheld the setting aside of an award that had directed India Yamaha Motor Pvt. Ltd. to take back unsold dealership stock and refund its price with 16% annual interest.
Dismissing the dealer's appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, a Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetrapal and Amit Mahajan held that the arbitral award had travelled beyond the terms of the Dealership Agreement.
“The learned Single Judge was justified in holding that the Arbitral Award travelled beyond the terms of the Agreement. The direction to refund the price of stock along with interest was not founded on any contractual stipulation and was premised on considerations extraneous to the Agreement,” the Court observed.
Case Title : Geniemode Global Pvt. Ltd. v. Priyanka Impex Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
Case Number : O.M.P. (MISC.) (COMM.) 150/2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 192
The Delhi High Court recently reiterated that once a dispute is taken to a Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council under the MSMED Act, jurisdiction to entertain challenges arising from those proceedings lies with courts at the location of the Council where the supplier is situated, even if the contract names a different arbitration seat.
Dismissing the petition for want of territorial jurisdiction, Justice Jasmeet Singh held,"Since it is the Facilitation Council at Panchkula, Haryana which has dealt with the issue in controversy, appointed the Arbitrator, conducted the arbitration proceedings, applying the principles of Harcharan Dass Gupta (supra) and Mahakali Foods (supra) as discussed above, is the Courts at the location of Facilitation Council where the supplier is located which will have jurisdiction. This Court lacks the jurisdiction to entertain and try the present petition."
Case Title : Railways Board, Ministry of Railways v. Titagarh Rail Systems Limited
Case Number : O.M.P. (COMM) 475/2024
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 202
The Delhi High Court has set aside a ₹5.19 crore arbitral award against the Railways Board after the Railways challenged the legality of the sole arbitrator it had appointed. The Court held that appointing a serving railway officer as arbitrator, without an express written waiver by both parties, rendered the award void from the beginning.
Allowing a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Justice Avneesh Jhingan held, “The appointment of a serving employee as an arbitrator falls within the teeth of Section 12(5) read with Schedule VII of the Act. The appointment being void ab initio rendered impugned award nullity.”
“In none of the documents relied upon there is an express agreement in writing waiving the rigours of Section 12(5). The short-listing of two names from the four names proposed by the petitioner cannot be considered to be compliance and the waiver has to be specific and not to be implied from conduct,” the Court observed. Holding that statutory ineligibility strikes at the root of jurisdiction and cannot be cured by participation in proceedings, the Court declared the appointment void ab initio and set aside the award.
Case Title : Zreyah Semiconductors Pvt. Ltd. v. Oyo Hotels and Homes Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : O.M.P. (COMM) 249/2023 & I.A. 14284/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 107
The Delhi High Court has ruled in favour of OYO Hotels and Homes Pvt. Ltd. in a dispute over the supply of electronic switches. The Court upheld an arbitral award directing Zreyah Semiconductors Private Limited to deliver 11,000 switches to OYO and refund Rs 2.84 crore with interest. It said the arbitrator's conclusions were plausible and did not call for interference. The case was heard by Justice Avneesh Jhingan. The court agreed with the arbitrator's reading of the contract. It refused to re-examine the evidence. “The finding recorded by the arbitrator suffers from no factual or legal error much less perversity,” the court said. The court also noted that no switches were supplied at all. In those circumstances, there was no contractual basis for demanding a full advance. Finding no patent illegality or perversity, the court dismissed Zreyah's petition and upheld the arbitral award.
Case Title : Steel Authority Of India Limited Versus M/S Primetals Technologies India Pvt. Limited
Case Number : O.M.P. (COMM) 451/2023 & I.A. 21931/2023
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 190
Reiterating that courts cannot rewrite commercial contracts while exercising jurisdiction under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the Delhi High Court has upheld an arbitral award directing Steel Authority of India Ltd (SAIL) to refund Rs. 1.40 crore deducted from a contractor's final bill over an alleged shortfall in Minimum Guaranteed CENVAT Credit (MGCC).
Justice Avneesh Jhingan held that interpretation of contractual clauses lies within the domain of the arbitral tribunal and a court under Section 34 cannot sit in appeal over a plausible view taken by the arbitrator.
“The award was passed after considering the relevant clauses of the contract. The interpretation by the arbitrator is not only plausible but in the absence of any clause providing for deduction on account of shortfall in MGCC, is the only interpretation possible,” the Court observed.
Case Title : Union of India v. M/s Rama Constructions Company
Case Number : O.M.P. (COMM) 312/2020
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 201
The Delhi High Court on 25 February, upheld an arbitral award granting Rs. 80.05 lakh along with 10% interest to Rama Constructions Company in a dispute arising from civil and electrical works executed at the Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium Complex, New Delhi.
Dismissing the Union of India's challenge, Justice Jasmeet Singh reiterated the limited scope of judicial interference, noting that the Arbitrator's findings were evidence-based and did not warrant interference under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Justice Singh observed:
“I am of the view, that the contention of the petitioner that the said claim was adjudicated by the Arbitrator in contravention of the Contract Agreement and is consequently perverse, cuts no ice. The Arbitrator has carefully undertaken a fact grounded appreciation of the entire claim and material placed on record. Be that as it may, in proceedings under Section 34 of the Act, such a fact based and evidence driven determination is entitled to be upheld.”
Telangana High Court
Case Title : Sagar Asia Private Limited v. Mr. V. Agastya Sagar & Ors
Case Number : Writ Petition No. 37432 of 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (TEL) 6
The Telangana High Court has recently held that its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution cannot be invoked to challenge an arbitral tribunal's rejection of a jurisdictional objection when the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 provides a specific post-award remedy.
Dismissing a writ petition filed by Sagar Asia Private Limited, a Division Bench of Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice Gadi Praveen Kumar held that the petitioner must await the arbitral award and pursue remedies under Sections 34 and 37 of the Act.
“The petitioner's choice of forum is entirely misplaced as a clear statutory remedy is available under section 16(6) of the Act. That stage has not yet been reached. There is no conceivable reason as to why the Writ Court would impede the momentum of the arbitral proceedings midway,” the court observed.
Examining the statutory framework under Sections 16, 34 and 37 of the Act, the High Court held that once a plea under Section 16 is rejected, the arbitral tribunal is required to continue the proceedings and render its award. Only thereafter can the aggrieved party challenge the award under Section 34. If that challenge fails, an appeal lies under Section 37(1)(c).
Karnataka High Court
Right To Seek Arbitration Ends Once Written Statement Stage Is Closed: Karnataka High Court
Case Title : M/s Bhagyalakshmi Homes LLP v. Sulekha Verma and Ors
Case Number : Commercial Appeal No.618 of 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 21
The Karnataka High Court has reiterated that a defendant cannot seek reference to arbitration under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 after its right to file a written statement in a commercial suit has been closed, dismissing an appeal filed by real estate developer Bhagyalakshmi Homes LLP.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C.M. Poonacha upheld the Commercial Court's order rejecting the developer's plea to refer the dispute to arbitration.
“It is clear from the plain language of Sub-section (1) of Section 8 of the A&C Act that an application under Section 8 can be made not later than the date of submitting his first statement on the substance of the dispute,” the Bench observed.
Referring to its earlier decision in SPML Infra Ltd. v. Trisquare Switchgears (P) Ltd. and the Supreme Court's ruling in SSCG Contracts (India) (P) Ltd. v. K.S. Chamankar Infrastructure (P) Ltd., the Bench reiterated that in commercial suits a written statement must be filed within 30 days of service of summons, extendable up to 120 days, beyond which the right stands forfeited.
Case Title : Mobisy Technologies Pvt Ltd v. M/s J G Hosiery Pvt Ltd
Case Number : CMP No. 311 of 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 20
The Karnataka High Court held that enterprises are not required in every case to move the Facilitation Council under Chapter V of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006, which provides a mechanism for referring delayed payment disputes to the Council.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj clarified that a contractual arbitration clause remains enforceable unless the statutory process under Section 18 is actually invoked.
“It cannot be said, as an absolute proposition, that micro, small or medium enterprises are required in every case to proceed only under Chapter V of the MSMED Act and to refer all disputes to the Facilitation Council under Section 18. The requirement arises only upon invocation of the statutory mechanism in the case of micro and small enterprises, and does not arise at all in the case of medium enterprises,” the Court observed.
The Court further held that Chapter V, titled “Delayed payments to micro and small enterprises,” applies only to micro and small enterprises. Referring to Section 2(n), which defines “supplier” as a micro or small enterprise, it held that the definition cannot be stretched to include medium enterprises. Medium enterprises are therefore outside the scope of Section 18.
Arbitration Can Resume Without Fresh Notice After Award Is Set Aside: Karnataka High Court
Case Title : M/s Re Sustainability Healthcare Solutions Limited v. Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike and Anr
Case Number : Civil Misc. Petition No. 12 of 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 14
The Karnataka High Court has held that once an arbitral award is set aside, the disputes stand revived and can be referred back to arbitration without requiring the parties to issue a fresh notice under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Section 21 deals with the commencement of arbitral proceedings through notice to the opposing party. Justice Suraj Govindaraj held that this requirement is procedural and not jurisdictional and cannot be invoked to block arbitration after an award has been annulled. "The legal consequence of such an order is that the award is obliterated and ceases to exist in the eye of law,” the court held, clarifying that annulment of an award returns the parties to arbitration to resolve the same disputes. “The requirement of a fresh notice under Section 21 is procedural and cannot be elevated to a jurisdictional bar so as to defeat the substantive right of a party to seek arbitration,” the court added, noting that the opposing party was already aware of the disputes and had participated in earlier arbitral proceedings.
Madras High Court
Madras High Court Quashes ₹1.10 Crore Award Against Annai Builders For "Unintelligible" Findings
Case Title : M/s Annai Builders Real Estate Pvt Ltd v. G.B. Sarath Kumar
Case Number : Arb O.P (Com. Div.) No. 62 of 2021; EP SR No. 123007 of 2023
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 51
The Madras High Court on 17 February set aside a Rs. 1.10 crore arbitral award passed against Annai Builders Real Estate Pvt. Ltd., holding that the arbitrator's findings were unintelligible as two disputed running bills were allowed without examining objections of duplicate claims and excess payment, and by ignoring a detailed 242-page expert report assessing actual construction progress.
A Single Bench of Justice N. Anand Venkatesh held that the award suffered from perversity and patent illegality and set it aside in entirety. The Court observed:
“on an overall reading of the award passed by the Sole Arbitrator, this Court finds that the findings rendered for the main issues are unintelligible and it was given in complete disregard to the evidence available on record and the findings are also mutually contradictory. Hence, this Court is inclined to interfere with the entire award on the ground of perversity and patent illegality”.
Case Title : Volleyball Federation of India v. Baseline Ventures (India) Pvt. Ltd
Case Number : Arb.O.P. (Com.Div.) No. 175 of 2021
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 50
The Madras High Court refused to interfere with an arbitral award directing the Volleyball Federation of India to pay Rs.4 crore as loss of profits to Baseline Ventures, the former promoter of the Pro Volleyball League, holding that the federation's termination of the 2018 agreement was unjustified.
Justice N. Anand Venkatesh held that the award dated November 21, 2020 “does not suffer from any perversity or patent illegality warranting the interference of this Court."
Having found the termination unlawful, the arbitrator had awarded Rs.4 crore towards loss of profits. The Court endorsed the approach adopted for quantifying damages, reiterating that arbitrators are permitted “to employ an honest guesswork and a rough and ready method for quantifying the damages.
Case Title : Sivashankar & Co. vs The Divisional Railway Manager
Case Number : Arb.OP (Com.Div).No.630 of 2022
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 48
Holding that a contract that has already expired cannot thereafter be terminated, the Madras High Court has partly set aside an arbitral award that upheld Southern Railway's termination of a works contract and the consequent forfeiture of deposits.
“The very process of termination presupposes that there is a subsisting contract. If there is no subsisting contract, there is nothing to be terminated thereafter,” Justice N. Anand Venkatesh observed while partly allowing a petition under Section 34 of the arbitration and Conciliation Act filed by Sivashankar & Co.
“The petitioner could not have challenged the termination of contract under Section 9 of the Act since if the petitioner has sought for injuncting the respondent from terminating, it would have been rejected under Section 14 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 since it is capable of being compensated in terms of money,” the court further observed.
Case Title : B.M. Insulation Private Limited v. Vardeep Petro Chemical Private Limited & M/s Saffe Systems v. BGR Energy Systems Limited
Case Number : Arb. Appln. No. 374 of 2025 & Arb. Appln. No. 628 of 2025,
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 41
The Madras High Court has held that interim protection under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, remains available even after an arbitral award is passed and execution proceedings are filed, until the award is fully satisfied. “The words 'before it is enforced' means 'until the complete satisfaction of the award',” a full bench said, rejecting the view that such relief ends once the award becomes enforceable.
A full bench of the High Court said the word 'enforced' in Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act means until the award is fully satisfied, not merely enforceable.
“When Section 9 contemplates a Post-Award protection, the purpose of such interim protection being to secure the property or amount for the benefit of the party which seeks enforcement of the award, no further interpretation can be made which will cripple such interim protection intended to be given to the award holder by the statute.,” the bench held.
Madras High Court Sets Aside ₹7.77-Crore Award Against New India Assurance
Case Title : The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Rajkumar Impex Private Ltd.
Case Number : Arb.O.P.(Com.Div.) No. 223 of 2022
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 40
The Madras High Court has recently set aside a Rs 7.77-crore arbitral award passed against New India Assurance Company Limited, holding that the arbitral tribunal failed to properly examine whether the claimant had the right to maintain the insurance claim after transferring its entire business. Allowing the insurer's challenge, Justice N. Anand Venkatesh held that the tribunal ignored a threshold issue going to the root of the dispute and returned findings that were “bereft of any materials” and based on “mere surmises and conjectures”. Justice Venkatesh held that the tribunal failed to appreciate the legal effect of the Business Transfer Agreement. Treating the transaction as a slump sale, the court observed, “Once it is a slump sale, every other account receivable will stand transferred to the purchaser. The insurance policy amount that is receivable from the petitioner will also obviously stand transferred to the new entity.”
Case Title : MIOT Hospitals Private Limited v. Dr. Balaraman Palaniappan
Case Number : Arb.O.P.(Com.Div.) No.708 of 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 55
Holding that hospitals cannot restrain doctors from practicing their profession after termination of service, the Madras High Court has ruled that post-contract non-compete and non-solicitation clauses in doctor agreements are opposed to public policy and void under the Indian Contract Act. The court said such clauses are unlawful, unenforceable, and void ab initio.
Dismissing a petition filed by MIOT Hospitals Private Limited seeking appointment of a sole arbitrator against cardiothoracic surgeon Dr. Balaraman Palaniappan, Justice N. Anand Venkatesh imposed costs of Rs1 lakh on the hospital, finding that there was no surviving arbitrable dispute.
“An agreement entered into by a doctor with a hospital, which contains a non solicitation and or non compete clause, is certainly opposed to public policy and such an agreement is squarely hit by Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. Consequently, it must be held to be unlawful, unenforceable and void ab initio to that extent,” the Court held.
Madras High Court Attaches ₹154.63 Crore SEPC Receivables, Appoints PwC To Audit Financial Position
Case Title : GPE(INDIA) Ltd and Ors v. Twarit Consultancy Services Private Ltd and Ors
Case Number : EP Nos.7 of 2024, 91&92 of 2023, 15&16 of 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 54
The Madras High Court recently ordered interim attachment of Rs. 154.63 crore from the trade receivables of SEPC Limited, formerly known as Shriram EPC Limited, and appointed an independent auditor to examine its financial position, observing that it “cannot sit like a lame duck” while awaiting submissions from banks claiming charge over the company's assets.
Justice N. Anand Venkatesh passed the order in execution petitions filed by GPE (India) Ltd. seeking enforcement of a foreign arbitral award dated January 7, 2021, passed by the Singapore International Arbitration Centre.
“In the absence of any other security available and considering the huge amount that is due and payable to the award holder, this order of interim attachment is warranted,” the judge held.
Arbitrator Appointed By Agreed Institution Not Per Se Unilateral: Madras High Court
Case Title : Thomas Varghese v. M/s Sundaram Finance Limited & Anr
Case Number : Arb.OP (Com.Div.) No.598 of 2023
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 57
Drawing a clear distinction between unilateral appointments and institutional nominations, the Madras High Court has held that an arbitrator appointed by an arbitral institution agreed upon by the parties cannot automatically be treated as a unilateral appointee, even if one side initiates the process.
“The appointment of Arbitral Tribunal by an institution that is agreed upon between the parties per se cannot be dealt with in the same manner in which the Court deals with an unilateral appointment of an Arbitrator,” Justice N. Anand Venkatesh observed while upholding an arbitral award in favour of Sundaram Finance Limited.
At the same time, the court cautioned that financial institutions cannot bypass settled law by creating so-called arbitral bodies as a ruse. Referring to developments after the Supreme Court's rulings on unilateral appointments, the judge noted that some entities have formed associations and described them as arbitral institutions in order to “get over the judgment of the Apex Court.” Courts, he said, must test the credibility and integrity of such institutions whenever objections are raised.
Bombay High Court
SARFAESI Involves Enforcement, Not Adjudication; Does Not Bar Arbitration: Bombay High Court
Case Title : Tata Capital Housing Financing Ltd vs Inderjeet Sahni and others
Case Number : Commercial Arbitration Application (L) No .35431 of 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 58
The Bombay High Court on Monday held that initiation of proceedings under the SARFAESI Act does not bar arbitration between a lender and a borrower. The court clarified that SARFAESI proceedings are meant only for enforcement of security and do not involve adjudication of disputes. Arbitration, it held, is an adjudicatory process and can proceed in parallel. Justice Sandeep V. Marne made the observations while hearing petitions filed by Tata Capital Housing Finance Ltd seeking appointment of an arbitrator and interim relief against its borrowers under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
However, the court observed that proceedings under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act stand on a different footing. “Like arbitration proceedings, even proceedings under the RDDB Act are adjudicatory in nature as the arbitrator or the DRT adjudicates the claim of the banks or financial institutions.On the other hand, the remedy under the SARFAESI Act is merely in the nature of enforcement where no adjudication takes place. This is yet another reason why mere initiation of proceedings under the SARFAESI Act cannot be a ground for not permitting adjudicatory proceedings under the Arbitration Act and vice versa,” the court observed.
Case Title : State of Maharashtra vs Morya Infrastructure Pvt Ltd Beed
Case Number : COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION APPEAL NO. 01 OF 2023
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 86
The Bombay High Court at Aurangabad has dismissed the State of Maharashtra's challenge to an arbitral award of Rs. 596.60 lakhs, holding that objections to the constitution of the arbitral tribunal cannot be raised after filing of the written statement, counter-claim and commencement of evidence.
A Division Bench of Justices Arun R. Pedneker and Vaishali Patil-Jadhav on February 16, 2026, upheld the Commercial Court's May 6, 2022, order refusing to set aside the award dated February 11, 2018.
“In such circumstances, the objection raised at a belated stage, after filing of the written statement, counter-claim and after commencement of evidence, is clearly not in consonance with Section 16(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which mandates that a plea as to the lack of jurisdiction or improper constitution of the arbitral tribunal shall be raised not later than the submission of the statement of defence,” the court observed.
Case Title : Dealmoney Commodities Pvt. Ltd. v. Vijay Vithal Sawant & Anr.
Case Number : Commercial Arbitration Petition (L) Nos. 1665 & 1700 of 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 81
The Bombay High Court upheld an arbitral finding that Dealmoney Commodities Pvt Ltd executed “blatantly unauthorised” Futures and Options trades in the accounts of a retired couple, which resulted in the depletion of their investment portfolio, and restored compensation of over Rs. 33 lakh with 18 percent interest.
A Single Bench of Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh confirmed the investors' entitlement to Rs. 17,76,581 and Rs.15,32,073 respectively, with interest at 18 percent per annum from August 10, 2020, till payment, along with costs of Rs 25,000.
“The call transcripts precisely prove that the initiation of the trade was not by the Respondent but by the Petitioner's employee without any authorisation which renders the trades blatantly unauthorised. ,” the court observed.
Case Title : A. Navinchandra Steel Private Limited & Ors. v. Board of Directors of Abhyudaya Co-Op. Bank Ltd. & Ors.
Case Number : INTERIM APPLICATION (LODGING) NO.1785 OF 2026 [IN COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 742 of 2025]
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 79
The Bombay High Court has recently held that a multi-state co-operative bank can recover its loan dues through arbitration under Section 84 of the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002, which provides for statutory dispute resolution in matters concerning the business of such societies, and is not confined to approaching the Debt Recovery Tribunal under the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993.
Dismissing challenges to arbitral awards obtained by Abhyudaya Co-operative Bank Ltd, Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh ruled that there is no exclusive jurisdiction with the Tribunal under the RDB Act.
The Court said, “The statutory provision of RDB Act does not place an absolute embargo on the mechanism provided under the MSCS Act and on the contrary, admits of the right of a multi State co-operative society to initiate proceedings under MSCS Act to recover debts”.
Bombay High Court Upholds ₹32 Crore Arbitral Award Against Solapur Municipal Corporation
Case Title : The Commissioner, Solapur Municipal Corporation & Ors. v. M/s S.M.C.-G.E.C.P. Ltd (JV) with M/s S.M.C.-G.E.C.P. Ltd (JV) v. The Commissioner, Solapur Municipal Corporation & Ors.
Case Number : Commercial Arbitration Petition No. 444 of 2024 with Commercial Arbitration Petition No. 252 of 2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 72
The Bombay High Court rejected a challenge by the Solapur Municipal Corporation (SMC) against an arbitral award directing it to pay over ₹32 crore to a joint venture contractor. Justice Sandeep V. Marne, while upholding the award, observed that once it is established that project delays were attributable to the civic body's failures, all subsequent penalties and blacklisting orders against the contractor were rightly set aside. He held that the Award in the present case, dated 18th June 2020, “appears to be unexceptional warranting dismissal of the Arbitration Petition.”
The Court explained that once termination is found unjustified, awarding a reasonable percentage of unexecuted work as damages is justified. Noting that the Tribunal followed the same approach, the Court held that "the objection raised on behalf of the Municipal Corporation about absence of any evidence to prove actual cause of loss is misplaced deserving rejection.”
Housing Society Bound By Arbitration Clause In Individual Sale Agreements: Bombay High Court
Case Title : Shree Dev Shasan Jain Shwetambar Murtipujak Trust v. Veer Tower CHS Ltd. & Bhadra Enterprises v. Veer Tower CHS Ltd.
Case Number : Arbitration Application No. 103 of 2025 and Arbitration Application No. 360 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 73
The Bombay High Court held that a co-operative housing society, although a distinct legal entity, is a “veritable party” to the agreements signed by its individual members and is therefore bound by the arbitration clauses embedded within them. The Single Bench of Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan, emphasised that when a society is formed specifically to represent the collective interests of homebuyers, it inherits the obligations of arbitration contained in the individual sale agreements, and disputes arising from those agreements must be resolved through arbitration.
The Bench referred the dispute to arbitration and appointed Justice (Retd.) Akil Kureshi as the Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate all disputes between the parties.
The Court observed: “The very nature of the arrangement is that each constituent of the Society is a party to an arbitration agreement and when they form a society on the very same subject matter of their bilateral agreements, it would be a classic example of the Society being a veritable party to the collective arbitration agreement.”
Pending CBI Probe Not Adjudication: Bombay High Court Upholds Arbitral Award Against Central Railway
Case Title : Union of India v. M/s. Bridge Track And Tower Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : Arbitration Petition No. 221 of 2023
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 62
The Bombay High Court on Wednesday held that Central Railway cannot withhold undisputed payments to a contractor merely because a criminal case is pending in relation to another supply. The Court said a CBI investigation does not amount to adjudication under a contract and cannot, by itself, justify retaining money that is otherwise payable. A single bench of Justice Gauri Godse held that the Railways were required to first raise a recovery claim and subject it to adjudication before exercising any lien under the contract. It held, “Findings recorded in criminal proceedings would not bind the civil proceedings, if any, initiated by the petitioner to recover the amount alleged to have been fraudulently recovered by the respondent. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled to charge a lien on the amounts due and payable for the goods admittedly supplied under the first purchase order by relying upon its right to keep a lien on the ground that a criminal proceeding is pending regarding the amounts recovered by the respondent under the second purchase order.”
Bombay High Court Sets Aside ₹1.17-Crore Arbitral Award Enforcing Off-Book Cash Claims
Case Title : Jinam Arihant Realtors And Ors. v. Neha Yogesh Sachde
Case Number : Arbitration Petition (L) No. 20865 of 2023
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 65
The Bombay High Court has set aside an arbitral award directing a real estate partnership to pay over Rs 1.17 crore to a former partner, holding that the award sought to enforce rights allegedly arising from illegal and undocumented cash transactions. Allowing the challenge, Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan held that the arbitral tribunal had enforced rights flowing from a partnership arrangement that was shown to operate entirely outside lawful accounting. The court warned that if such transactions were allowed to be enforced, it would collapse the distinction between legal contracts and illegal bargains. "If such transactions, that are blatantly contrary to the rule of law, were to be permitted to be enforced by the legal system, there would be no difference between enforcement of a valid and legal contract and enforcement of bargains that are evidently in direct conflict with law", the court observed.
Bombay High Court Says Award-Holder Has No Right to Retain Deposit After Arbitral Award Is Set Aside
Case Title : Rashtriya Chemicals & Fertilizers Limited Vs. Thermax Limited
Case Number : Interim Application (L) No. 42351 of 2025 in Commercial Arbitration Appeal (L) No. 42190 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 56
The Bombay High Court recently held that Rashtriya Chemicals and Fertilizers Limited has no right to retain Rs 218.45 crore deposited by Thermax after the arbitral award in its favour was set aside, making it clear that the pendency of an appeal cannot be used to hold on to the money. A Division Bench of Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Gautam A. Ankhad said the legal position was straightforward once the award no longer existed. The court noted, “There is no arbitral award in existence, and, therefore, there is no question of the respondent suffering rigors of the arbitral award.” The court noted that the deposit was made only because the award and the interim order were in place. Once the award was struck down, Thermax could not be made to suffer the consequences of an award that no longer existed.
Arbitral Tribunals Cannot Grant Equity-Based Relief Unless Authorised By Contract: Bombay High Court
Case Title : Nirmal Bang Securities Pvt Ltd vs Shashi Mehra HUF
Case Number : Arbitration Petition No. 304 of 2024
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 59
The Bombay High Court has held that arbitral tribunals must decide disputes strictly in accordance with the contract and applicable law and cannot grant relief based on "notions of equity or fairness" unless the parties have expressly authorised such an approach. Setting aside an arbitral award directing a refund of brokerage, the court held that arbitrators are not courts of law empowered to dispense equitable relief and that once transactions are held to be authorised, their contractual consequences cannot be undone on equitable considerations alone. A single-judge bench of Justice Sandeep V. Marne made the observation while allowing a petition filed by Nirmal Bang Securities Pvt. Ltd., a registered stockbroker, which had challenged an appellate arbitral award passed under the dispute resolution framework of the National Stock Exchange. "Arbitral Tribunals are not courts of law who can invoke notions of equity or fairness unless the parties confer such jurisdiction under Section 28(2)," it held It further observed that even if regulatory or procedural lapses were established, such lapses may invite action by market regulators but cannot justify nullifying the contractual consequences of authorised transactions.
Case Title : Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority v. Mumbai Metro One Private Limited along with IA and Connected Matter
Case Number : Commercial Arbitration Petition No. 427 of 2024
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 97
The Bombay High Court has partly upheld the Rs. 496.48 crore arbitral award in favour of Mumbai Metro One Private Limited arising from the Metro Line 1 project, but has set aside nearly Rs. 248 crore awarded under three heads of damages, finding that those components were not backed by evidence.
Justice Sandeep V. Marne underscored that courts are required to respect the finality of arbitral awards and cannot interfere lightly. At the same time, he made it clear that intervention is justified where findings are perverse, legally untenable, or unsupported by evidence.
It observed, "Guesswork cannot be a short cut for production of evidence. Guesswork can be undertaken only when it is impossible to compute the exact quantum of losses suffered by the injured party. If evidence of sufferance of loss itself is not available, the Arbitral Tribunal cannot award damages of lesser sum than the one by presuming holding that some loss must have been suffered. When award of damages itself is not warranted due to absence of evidence, awarded claim cannot be sustained before Section 34 Court because the Tribunal awards far lesser sum or conservative sum than the one demanded."
Case Title : Khimchand Prithviraj Kothari Versus M/s. Earth Realtors
Case Number : Commercial Arbitration Petition (L) No. 37842 Of 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 94
The Bombay High Court has partly modified an arbitral tribunal's interim order in a redevelopment dispute, holding that the tribunal exceeded the scope of interim protection in prescribing the manner in which Transferable Development Rights (TDR) could be sold.
Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan was hearing an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, filed by landowner Khimchand Prithviraj Kothari against an interim order passed in favour of developer Earth Realtors.
“A plain reading of the right of first refusal framework… would indicate a new contractual arrangement that has been created,” the court observed. The court modified the directions to require prior notice to both the owner and the arbitral tribunal before any TDR sale, made such sale subject to tribunal approval, and directed that the proceeds be deposited in a separate bank account to be used only for redevelopment, with monthly disclosures.
Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court
Case Title : Union of India v. M/s K.K. Enterprises Contractors
Case Number : AA No. 07/2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (JAM) 3
The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh has dismissed an appeal filed by the Union of India challenging an arbitral award that granted 12 percent post-award interest, holding that the statutory 18 percent rate under the unamended law applies only where the award is silent.
A Division Bench of Justice Rajnesh Oswal and Justice Rahul Bharti dismissed an appeal filed by the Union of India challenging and award including the grant of 12 percent future interest in favour of K.K. Enterprises Contractors.
The Court examined Section 31(7)(b) of the 1997 Act as it stood prior to amendment. The provision states that a sum directed to be paid by an arbitral award shall carry interest at 18 percent per annum from the date of the award until payment, unless the award otherwise directs. Since the arbitrator had expressly granted 12 percent interest, the statutory default of 18 percent did not apply.
The Court said, "The learned Arbitrator exercised his discretion to grant future interest at the rate of 12% per annum. We find no illegality in this determination.”
Case Title : The Highways Authority of India through its Project Director Bharat Bhushan vs Rano Devi & Ors.
Case Number : WP(C) No.82/2024
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (JAM) 6
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has held that an arbitral award determining compensation under the National Highways Act cannot be interfered with in a Section 37 appeal merely because another view on valuation is possible.
Dismissing two appeals filed by the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI), Justice Javed Iqbal Wani reiterated that Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 provides only a limited right of appeal.
The Court further clarified that the Appellate Court under Section 37 supra cannot re-appreciate the evidence, re-evaluate factual findings or substitute its own view merely because another view is possible and that the errorsof fact or erroneous appreciation of evidence by the Arbitrator would not constitute valid grounds for interference, unless such errors go to the root of the matter and fall within the narrow category of patent illegality or contravention of fundamental policy of Indian law"
Venue Of Arbitration Is Seat In Absence Of Contrary Indication: J&K&L High Court
Case Title : S.D.Bhat vs Hindustan Construction Company Ltd (HCC Ltd) & Anr., 2026
Case Number : Arb P No.21/2021
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (JAM) 5
The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladkah High Court has recently reiterated that where an arbitration clause designates a particular place as the “venue” of arbitration and there is no contrary indication, such place must be treated as the “seat” of arbitration, thereby conferring exclusive jurisdiction on courts at that location.
"It is, thus settled that whenever there is mention of place of arbitration in an arbitration clause as being the venue of arbitration proceedings, it would really mean the seat of arbitral proceedings. This is so because the expression “arbitration/ arbitral proceedings” does not refer to individual hearing but conveys that entire arbitration process including making of the award shall be conducted at the place referred to as venue‟, the court observed.
Case Title : H.P.Singh & Co. Vs Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : AA No.5/2018
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (JAM) 4
The Jammu & Kashmir& Ladkah High Court on 13 February 2026 held that once a contractor voluntarily executes a supplementary agreement rescinding the original contract and issues an unconditional “No Claim Certificate,” no arbitral dispute survives.
A Bench of Justice Sanjeev Kumar dismissed the petition filed by H.P. Singh & Co. under Section 11(6) of the J&K Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1997, seeking appointment of an independent arbitrator against the Union of India and Northern Railways. Since the petitioner had voluntarily executed the supplementary agreement rescinding the arbitration clause and subsequently issued a No Claim Certificate without protest, the dispute was deemed settled by accord and satisfaction.
Meghalaya High Court
Meghalaya High Court Upholds BSCPL's 5-Year Blacklisting For Alleged Corruption In NH-44E Project
Case Title : BSCPL Infrastructure Ltd vs Public Works Department (Roads)
Case Number : WA No.3/2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (MEG) 1
The Meghalaya High Court has recently upheld the five-year blacklisting of BSCPL Infrastructure Ltd by the State Public Works Department (Roads) for engaging in corrupt practices during execution of a National Highway project.
The court held that the department was justified in acting on ledger entries showing expenditure on liquor, electronic items, hotel bills and donations for government officials during execution of a National Highway project.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice W. Diengdoh dismissed the company's writ appeal. The Bench affirmed the order dated December 3, 2024 debarring the joint venture from participating in future PWD tenders. It also upheld the Single Judge's judgment dated December 17, 2025 dismissing the writ petition. A Division Bench of Chief Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice W. Diengdoh dismissed the company's writ appeal. The Bench affirmed the order dated December 3, 2024 debarring the joint venture from participating in future PWD tenders. It also upheld the Single Judge's judgment dated December 17, 2025 dismissing the writ petition.
“We find that no interference is warranted either in the order dated 3rd December, 2024, blacklisting the appellant-JV or in the order impugned dated 17th December, 2025, passed by the learned Single Judge in WP (C) No.24 of 2025,” the court observed.
Calcutta High Court
Case Title : Alok Saraf & Ors. vs Shyam Sundar Nangalia & Ors.
Case Number : APOT No.269 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 54
The Calcutta High Court on 18 February, held that an arbitral award holder is not left remediless after initiating enforcement proceedings and may seek interim protection under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act until the award is fully satisfied.
A Division Bench of Justices Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Supratim Bhattacharya was hearing an appeal filed by Alok Saraf and others against the EPI Group, challenging a single judge's order dated 10 September 2025, which had refused ad interim relief in their Section 9 application.
The Court observed: “Although Section 36 (2) of the 1996 Act itself contemplates stay of the award, the same operates only to the benefit of the award debtor, and is restricted to a stay of the award. However, neither Section 36 nor Section 34 of the 1996 Act provides any remedy similar to Section 9 to the award holder, in aid of and in order to facilitate the fruition of the award.”
Case Title : India Media Services Private Limited v. SBPL Infrastructure Limited
Case Number : APOT No. 1 of 2026 with IA No. GA 1 of 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 53
An executing court does not become functus officio merely because it “allows” an execution petition, the Calcutta High Court has held, clarifying that jurisdiction continues until the arbitral award is fully implemented and satisfied.
Dismissing an appeal filed by India Media Services Pvt Ltd, a Division Bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Justice Supratim Bhattacharya said that allowing the execution case was “merely nominal, contemplating further steps to be taken” and that “it cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that the executing court became functus officio.”
The Division Bench held that an award for specific performance remains executory until the deed is finalised, executed, and registered. “Unless an award is satisfied, it cannot be said that the execution is complete,” the Court observed.
Copy Of Arbitration Agreement Sufficient Where Original Not Available: Calcutta High Court
Case Title : Akankha Nirman Private Limited & Anr. v. M/s. Supreme Construction & Ors.
Case Number : CO 2628 of 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 51
The Calcutta High Court held that an application seeking reference to arbitration cannot be rejected merely because the original arbitration agreement or a certified copy is not produced, if the statutory requirements under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act are otherwise satisfied. A Single Bench of Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya set aside the orders of the trial court and the first appellate court, which had refused to refer the parties to arbitration.
The court observed that the courts below had adopted a “hyper-technical” approach and conducted a “mini trial” at the referral stage by holding that the dispute over the return of documents fell outside the scope of the arbitration clause. “This Court accordingly holds that when the original arbitration agreement or a duly certified copy thereof is not available with the party applying for reference to arbitration under Sub-section 1 of Section 8 of A & C Act, such application can be entertained if it is accompanied by a copy of arbitration agreement,” the bench observed.
No Appeal Lies Against Conditional Stay Of Arbitral Award: Calcutta High Court
Case Title : National Insurance Company Limited v. Tirupati Food Products
Case Number : APOT 320 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 45
The Calcutta High Court has held that an appeal does not lie against an order granting conditional stay of an arbitral award, observing that such orders fall outside the narrow appellate framework prescribed under arbitration Act. Section 36(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, allows a party that has challenged an arbitral award in court to seek a stay on the enforcement of that award.
A Division Bench of Justice Debangsu Basak and Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi dismissed an appeal filed by National Insurance Company Limited against an order of a Single Judge disposing of a Section 36(2) petition by granting conditional stay of an arbitral award.
Rejecting the appeal as not maintainable, the Division Bench held: “The right of appeal, so far as the parties before us are concerned, being circumscribed by Section 37 of the Act of 1996, and Section 37 of the Act of 1996 not providing any right of appeal against an order disposing of a petition under Section 36 (2) of the Act of 1996, the instant appeal is held to be not maintainable.”
Case Title : Prime Projects v. Prajnanananda Jana Seva Sangha & Anr.
Case Number: AP-COM 821 OF 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 47
The Calcutta High Court has observed that a real estate development agreement can qualify as a commercial dispute even if the project is residential in nature and even if both parties are not engaged in the business.
Justice Shampa Sarkar said the agreement, when read as a whole, showed that the property was meant to be commercially exploited.
"Whether the agreement is a nullity, and non est in the eye of law, will have to be decided by the learned arbitrator. The purpose of enquiry by the referral court is limited to the, prima facie, satisfaction as to the existence of the arbitration agreement", the court further observed.
Appointing a sole arbitrator, the court named Senior Advocate Sabyasachi Chowdhury to adjudicate the disputes between the parties. The appointment was made subject to disclosure requirements under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, and the arbitrator was given liberty to fix his remuneration in accordance with the statutory schedule.
Case Title : Indrani Sarangi v. Reliance Projects And Property Management Service Limited & Anr.
Case Number : AP (COM) No. 262 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 46
The Calcutta High Court has referred a telecom tower lease dispute to arbitration. It declined to decide, at the referral stage, whether non-signatory Reliance group entities were bound by the arbitration clause or whether past dues stood extinguished under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC).
Justice Shampa Sarkar held that such objections raise triable jurisdictional issues. These must be decided by the arbitral tribunal. The court reiterated that its role under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, is limited to a prima facie examination of the existence of an arbitration agreement.
“The scope of the referral court is limited to the, prima facie, satisfaction as to the existence of an arbitration agreement or an arbitration clause. No deeper probe or mini trial is permissible at this stage,” the court said.
Case Title : Turner Morrison Limited v. Berger Paints India Limited
Case Number : AP-COM/990/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 36
The Calcutta High Court has appointed Justice T.S. Sivagnanam, former Chief Justice of the Court, as the sole arbitrator to decide a tax liability holdback dispute between Turner Morrison Limited and Berger Paints India Limited. A Single Bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar held that objections based on limitation and contractual interpretation cannot be decided at the stage of appointing an arbitrator. The Court said such issues must be left to the arbitral tribunal, which is the “master of facts”. The court reiterated that its role at the referral stage is limited to examining the existence of an arbitration clause. A deeper inquiry into disputed facts or contractual meanings would defeat the purpose of arbitration as a speedy and time-bound remedy.
Calcutta High Court Sets Aside Arbitral Award Against Company Officials Without Impleading Companies
Case Title : Managing Director Bihar State Power Generation Company Ltd & Anr vs RS Construction & Anr
Case Number : APOT/332/2025, IA No.GA-COM/1/2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 43
The Calcutta High Court has set aside an arbitral award after finding that it was passed against two officials of state-owned power companies instead of the companies that were parties to the arbitration agreement. A Division Bench of Justices Debangsu Basak and Md. Shabbar Rashidi held that the award, which fastened liability on the managing director of Bihar State Power Generation Company Limited and the chairman of Bihar State Power Holding Company Limited, could not be sustained since the arbitration agreement admittedly existed only with the two companies. “In such circumstances, as the award passed are against two individuals, who are separate and distinct from the persons with whom the claimant in the arbitration proceedings entered into the arbitration agreement, the award cannot be sustained,” the court said.
Non-Signatory Successor Company May Invoke Arbitration Clause After Merger: Calcutta High Court
Case Title : Tata Capital Ltd vs Arvind Manjhi
Case Number : AP-COM/40/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 44
The Calcutta High Court has recently held that a company that becomes the successor of an original contracting party pursuant to an NCLT-approved merger can invoke an arbitration clause even if it is not a signatory to the original agreement. Justice Shampa Sarkar made the observation on February 3 while hearing an application filed by Tata Capital Limited seeking appointment of an arbitrator in a dispute arising out of a loan agreement with a borrower. “In my prima facie view, even if the petitioner is a non-signatory, in view of the merger, the petitioner can invoke arbitration as the successor of the erstwhile lender,” the court said. The court noted that the loan agreement defined the term “lender” to include its successors and assigns. It also recorded that the arbitration notice clearly disclosed the merger and explained how Tata Capital had stepped into the shoes of the original lender. The notice was received by the borrower, who raised no objection to Tata Capital's locus. Relying on the apex court's rulings on non-signatories in Chloro Controls India Pvt Ltd v Severn Trent Water Purification Inc and Cox and Kings Ltd v SAP India Pvt Ltd and the doctrine of competence-competence, the court observed that questions relating to arbitrability, limitation, and jurisdiction were matters to be decided by the arbitral tribunal.
Kerala High Court
Kerala High Court Sets Aside Arbitral Award For Relying On Findings Of Set-Aside Award
Case Title : Jimmy Elias v. Elizabeth Jasmine and Ors
Case Number : Arb.A No.24 of 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (KER) 21
The Kerala High Court has recently set aside an arbitral award after holding that the arbitrator committed a jurisdictional error by treating findings from an earlier arbitral award, which had already been set aside, as 'alive and final.' A bench comprising Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V. M. observed the arbitrator was required to consider the dispute afresh but failed to do so. Instead, the arbitrator proceeded on the assumption that conclusions recorded in the earlier arbitration continued to hold the field. The bench also noted that the arbitrator had failed to decide the counterclaim in accordance with law, despite evidence being available on record. That failure, the court said, independently vitiated the award. It further held that the Commercial Court had not properly exercised its jurisdiction while dismissing the challenge. “There has been no independent assessment of the pleadings or re-appreciation of the evidence which, in the context of the present proceedings, the learned Arbitrator is expected and supposed to do before arriving at a finding,” the court said.
Punjab & Haryana High Court
Punjab and Haryana High Court Sets Aside ₹5.18 Crore Arbitral Award Against Aditya Birla Fashion
Case Title : Aditya Birla Fashion and Retail Limited v. Dayanand
Case Number : FAO-CARB No. 39 of 2025 (O&M)
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (PNH) 9
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has set aside a Rs. 5.18 crore arbitral award passed in favour of landlord Dayanand and against Aditya Birla Fashion and Retail Limited in a dispute arising from a 2018 warehouse fire, holding that the award was contrary to the express terms of the lease deed and suffered from patent illegality.
“By awarding sum to compensate the losses arising from under valuation of the property, for the purposes of insurance, the Arbitrator has virtually re-written the contract, which is not permissible. This aspect has been completely omitted from consideration by the Arbitrator even though the appellant had specifically asserted that securing the leased-out premise against the incident of fire by way of insurance was the exclusive obligation of the claimant.” a Division Bench of Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Rohit Kapoor held.
The bench further noted that the damages awarded were not supported by proof of actual expenditure beyond what was assessed by the insurer. Reliance on valuation material and a Chartered Accountant's certificate was insufficient.
Case Title : Aggarwal Sons v. Union of India and Others
Case Number : CR-7890-2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (PNH) 8
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has set aside a condition imposed by an executing court that required an award-holder to furnish a bank guarantee to obtain release of an arbitral award amount. The court held that no such condition can be imposed by the executing court in the absence of any interim stay. A bench of Justice Jasgurpreet Singh Puri held that once objections to an arbitral award are dismissed and no interim order is granted in appeal, the executing court is bound to execute the award in full.
“In the absence of any interim order in appeal, the learned Executing Court is required to execute the decree without imposing any such onerous condition,” the Court observed.
Patna High Court
Case Title : Ankit Enterprises vs. M/S Shri Ram Sunil Kumar & Anr.
Case Number : Civil Revision No. 6 of 2023
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(PAT) 5
The Patna High Court has reaffirmed that a civil revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure does not lie against such an order passed under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 where the statute provides a specific appellate remedy.
The Court held that the Arbitration Act is a self-contained code and that Section 37 exhausts the appellate remedies.
Justice Ramesh Chand Malviya observed, “It is settled principles of law that the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 being a self-contained code, no revision under Section 115 CPC lies against such an order. Section 37 exhausts the appellate remedies and permitting a revision would amount to judicial interference not contemplated by the Act.” It relied on Supreme Court precedents emphasising that the Arbitration Act is a special and exhaustive legislation intended to ensure speedy dispute resolution, and therefore judicial intervention must remain strictly within the limited framework provided under the Act.
Case Title : The New India Assurance Company Limited v. Krishna City Hospital and Anr.
Case Number : Commercial Appeal No. 6 of 2024.
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(PAT) 4
The Patna High Court has ruled that the limitation period to challenge an arbitral award starts only when the party itself receives a signed copy of the award by registered post, and not when a signed copy is merely received on the email of the party's lawyer. "Thus, a conjoint reading of sub-section (5) of Section 31 and sub-section (3) of Section 34 would make it clear that the reckoning point for computation of the period of limitation is the date on which the party making the application had received the arbitral award.", the court said.
The Court held that mere receipt of a signed copy of the award on the lawyer's email, and its subsequent forwarding to the client with an opinion, cannot be treated as compliance with the statutory requirement. The Court observed: "We cannot stretch the meaning of the provision or substitute our own opinion in place of the wisdom of the legislatures as contained in sub-section (5) of Section 31 of the Act of 1996," the court said.
Allahabad High Court
Sole Arbitrator May Be Appointed To Reduce Costs Despite Three-Member Clause: Allahabad High Court
Case Title: Progressive Construction Company Thru.Partner/ Authorized Signatory Badelal v Versus Engineer-In-Chief And H.O.D., Pwd And Others
Case Number: CIVIL MISC. ARBITRATION APPLICATION No. - 19 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (ALL) 18
The Allahabad High Court has held that where an arbitration clause provides for a three-member tribunal but the parties fail to appoint arbitrators, the Court can appoint a sole arbitrator if a party seeks it to reduce costs.