Supreme Court
Case Title: National Highways Authority of India vs T Younis & Anr.
Case Number: SLP (C) NO. 7570 OF 2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz SC 216
The Supreme Court on Tuesday held that when parties invoke post-award proceedings before an arbitral tribunal seeking correction, interpretation, or an additional award, the limitation period for challenging the arbitral award begins only after those proceedings are disposed of.
The court observed that parties cannot be compelled to challenge an award while such proceedings remain pending before the tribunal.
A bench of Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Alok Aradhe allowed an appeal filed by the National Highway Authority of India (NHAI) and set aside a January 22, 2024 judgment of the Karnataka High Court.
It restored an August 5, 2023 order of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ballari, which had condoned the delay in filing NHAI's challenge to an arbitral award.
The bench ruled, “Once proceedings under Section 33 are initiated and entertained by the Arbitral Tribunal, the award remains subject to the limited jurisdiction of the tribunal for correction, interpretation, or supplementation as contemplated under the provision. So long as such proceedings remain pending, the parties cannot be compelled to institute proceedings under Section 34 merely as a matter of abundant caution. The parties can effectively pursue their remedy under Section 34 only upon conclusion of the proceedings under Section 33. Consequently, the limitation prescribed under Section 34(3) can start only from the date on which the proceedings under Section 33 are disposed of.”
Case Title : T.K.A. Padmanabhan v. Abhiyan Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd., Through Its Secretary
Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 10724 of 2016
Citation : 2026 LLBiz SC 229
The Supreme Court has held that a consumer who has invoked the Consumer Protection Act cannot be forced into arbitration merely because the underlying agreement contains an arbitration clause.
It restored a homebuyer's complaint alleging delayed possession of a flat for adjudication on merits before a consumer forum.
A Division Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and V. Mohana set aside orders of the consumer fora that had referred the dispute between T.K.A. Padmanabhan and Abhiyan Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd. to arbitration.
"The 1986 Act creates a special adjudicatory mechanism for consumer disputes. Once that mechanism is validly invoked and the complaint is admitted, the consumer cannot be driven out of that forum merely because the agreement between the parties contains an arbitration clause. A private contractual clause cannot be permitted to defeat the continued operation of a statutory remedy which Parliament has expressly made additional to other remedies under Section 3 of the 1986 Act," the court observed.
High Courts
Delhi High Court
Bennett Coleman Withdraws Delhi HC Plea Against Lord's Mark Share Listing Following Settlement
Case Title: Bennett Coleman and Co. Ltd. v. Lord's Mark Industries Limited & Ors.
Case Number : O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 241/2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 583
Bennett Coleman and Co. Ltd. (BCCL), publisher of The Times of India, has withdrawn its petition before the Delhi High Court challenging the proposed listing and commencement of trading of shares of Lord's Mark Industries Ltd.
The withdrawal came after Lord's Mark acknowledged BCCL's entitlement to 10,28,483 equity shares and agreed to place its claim before the Monitoring Committee supervising implementation of the resolution plan through which Kratos Energy and Infrastructure Ltd. was merged with Lord's Mark
Justice Amit Sharma permitted withdrawal of the petition after Lord's Mark Industries placed on record a communication dated May 30, 2026 recording the understanding reached between the parties.
In the communication, Lord's Mark stated:
“LMIL now confirms and acknowledges the entitlement BCCL to 10,28,483 equity shares in the resulting Company LMIL in pursue of warrant conversion notice at agreed value of Rs. 158/- (Rupees Hundred Fifty Eight Only).”
Case Title: M/s Ramacivil India Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. Central Public Works Department & Connected Matters
Case Number : ARB.P. 1787/2025 with O.M.P.(I)(COMM.) 35/2025, O.M.P.(I)(COMM.) 447/2025 and O.M.P.(I)(COMM.) 484/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 575
The Delhi High Court has reiterated that arbitration is founded on consent and party autonomy, holding that an entity cannot be impleaded in arbitral proceedings merely because it is the ultimate beneficiary of a project.
The Court set aside orders that had added IIM Jammu as a party to arbitration-related proceedings arising from disputes between Ramacivil India Construction Pvt. Ltd. and the Central Public Works Department (CPWD) over construction of the permanent campus of IIM Jammu at Jagti, Jammu.
Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar held that IIM Jammu was not a signatory to the contract or the arbitration agreement between Ramacivil and CPWD. The Court held that the circumstances relied upon by IIM Jammu, including its status as the ultimate beneficiary, its funding of the project and its participation in review meetings and supervision of the works, did not justify its impleadment.
The Court observed: “This Court is unable to accept that the status of an 'ultimate beneficiary' can constitute the governing test for impleadment in arbitral proceedings. Arbitration, being fundamentally consensual in nature, cannot be enlarged to include entities merely because they derive a benefit or possess an institutional interest in the project.”
Draft Agreements, WhatsApp Chats Alone Cannot Create Binding Arbitration Agreement: Delhi High Court
Case Title : Midpoint Commodeal Private Limited v. Fidatocity Homes Private Limited & Ors.
Case Number : O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 30/2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 580
The Delhi High Court has held that draft agreements, WhatsApp exchanges and prolonged commercial negotiations cannot, by themselves, create a binding arbitration agreement unless the parties have clearly and finally agreed on all essential terms of their arrangement.
A Bench of Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar dismissed a petition filed by Midpoint Commodeal Private Limited seeking protection of ₹15.30 crore allegedly invested in the "Sky Palazzos" real estate project in Gurugram.
“Mere negotiations, exchanged communications, draft agreements, tentative proposals, preliminary understandings, or ongoing commercial discussions may at best indicate an intention to negotiate or explore a prospective business relationship; however, such circumstances do not, by themselves, mature into a legally enforceable contract unless the parties demonstrably arrive at a final, unequivocal, and binding meeting of minds on all essential terms of the arrangement,” the Court observed.
The Court further observed, “Similarly, the WhatsApp exchanges and other communications relied upon by the Petitioner do not establish any unequivocal assent or concluded agreement between the parties. At best, the said communications reflect ongoing commercial negotiations and attempts to arrive at mutually acceptable terms. They do not disclose any final consensus on the essential contractual terms, much less any clear and binding agreement to arbitrate disputes.”
Delhi High Court Rejects Oracle's Challenge To Award Refusing Transfer Of 'Exadata.in' Domain
Case Title : Oracle International Corporation v. CIS IT Solutions Pvt Ltd
Case Number: O.M.P. (COMM) 232/2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 564
The Delhi High Court has refused to interfere with an arbitral award rejecting Oracle International Corporation's bid to secure the transfer of the domain name “www.exadata.in”. The court held that the arbitrator had arrived at a plausible factual conclusion that the threshold necessary for establishing bad-faith registration or use under the .IN Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (INDRP) had not been met.
Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar held that similarity between Oracle's registered “EXADATA” trademark and the disputed domain name was not, by itself, sufficient to justify the transfer of the domain name.
“The inquiry envisaged under the INDRP framework is, therefore, neither singular nor mechanical in nature, but is inherently contextual, fact-sensitive, and dependent upon an overall evaluation of the surrounding circumstances and evidentiary material placed on record.”, the court observed.
Withdrawn Civil Suit Does Not Bar Invocation Of Arbitration Clause: Delhi High Court
Case Title : VE Commercial Vehicles v. M/s Singh Enterprises
Case Number : ARB.P. 1778/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 615
The Delhi High Court has recently held that the filing of an earlier civil suit does not bar a party from invoking an arbitration clause where the suit was subsequently withdrawn.
The court observed, “Mere fact that earlier a civil suit had been filed, would be no bar to invoke arbitration in terms of the Arbitration Clause, especially, when the said suit had been withdrawn.”
Justice Mini Pushkarna made the observation while appointing Justice (Retd.) Kurian Joseph, former judge of the Supreme Court, as the Presiding Arbitrator in disputes between VE Commercial Vehicles Ltd. (VECV) and its former dealer, Singh Enterprises.
Case Title : Air Force Naval Housing Board v M/s NG Constructions
Case Number : O.M.P. (COMM) 497/2022, I.A. 21446/2022 & I.A. 31600/2025, O.M.P. (COMM) 116/2023
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 614
On 26 May, the Delhi High Court reiterated that waiver of the applicability of Section 12(5) read with the Seventh Schedule of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act cannot be inferred from conduct and must arise only from an express written agreement between the parties.
A Bench of Justice Avneesh Jhingan set aside an arbitral award in a dispute between a developer and the Air Force Naval Housing Board (AFNHB) concerning construction of a residential complex. It observed:
“The unilateral appointment in absence of an express agreement in writing between the parties to waive applicability of Section 12(5) of the Act is void ab initio. The filing of the statement of claim or participation in the arbitral proceedings cannot be construed as waiver under the proviso to Section 12(5) of the Act. The unilateral appointment of the arbitrator can be objected to for the first time under Section 34 of the Act.”
Defendant Cannot Invoke Arbitration Clause After Participating In Trial Without Objection: Delhi HC
Case Title : M/s Amber Electrotech Ltd. & Anr. v. M/s Dollar Security & Support Services
Case Number: RFA No. 242/2020, CM APPL. 25169/2020 & CM APPL. 28465/2020
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 605
The Delhi High Court on 3 June reiterated that a defendant who files a written statement and participates in the trial without seeking reference to arbitration at the appropriate stage cannot later invoke an arbitration clause to challenge the maintainability of the suit.
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna upheld a recovery decree of Rs. 2.91 lakh in favour of Dollar Security & Support Services against Amber Electrotech Ltd., finding that the company had never disputed the outstanding invoice dues and had merely raised technical objections and theft-related claims to resist payment. The Bench held:
“However, here was the case where the Written Statement was duly filed by the Appellant and thereafter, participated in the entire trial. Therefore, it is clearly evident that despite there being an Arbitration Clause, the Appellant had participated and submitted to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. This objection was also rightly dismissed by the learned District Judge.”
Delhi HC Refers Morgan Securities–BPL Post-Award Dispute To Arbitration, Appoints Justice U.U. Lalit
Case Title: Morgan Securities and Credits Pvt. Ltd. v. BPL Limited & Ors.
Case Number: O.M.P.(I)(COMM.) 173/2026 and ARB.P. 835/2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 613
On 29 May, the Delhi High Court referred the disputes between Morgan Securities and Credits Pvt. Ltd. and BPL Limited to arbitration, appointed former Chief Justice of India Justice U.U. Lalit as sole arbitrator, and continued interim protection restraining alteration of BPL's assets, management, and control structure pending arbitration.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar held that alleged post-award breaches arising from subsequent transactions can give rise to a fresh and independent arbitrable dispute, even though the earlier arbitral award had attained finality after the Supreme Court dismissed BPL Limited's challenge in 2025. He observed:
“this Court finds that each of the above transactions and findings by the Petitioner constitutes a distinct act, alleged to be in breach of Clause 6 of the contractual framework, in respect of which, Arbitration was invoked vide Notice dated 20.12.2025. The present invocation cannot be characterised as a re-agitation of disputes already adjudicated, being in response to subsequent and independent acts of alleged contractual violation. While the agreement remains unchanged, the disputes, being founded on fresh transactions, are clearly distinct and capable of independent reference to Arbitration.”
Case Title: Conscient Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. Mr. Mahesh Kapoor & Anr.
Case Number : O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 138/2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 611
The Delhi High Court has recently held that mere invocation of statutory restrictions on specific performance cannot, by itself, justify refusal of interim protective relief in arbitration proceedings.
It observed that such objections must be clearly established before a court can decline measures aimed at preserving the subject matter of a dispute pending arbitration.
Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar made the observation while granting interim protection to Conscient Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. in a dispute concerning a proposed 6.76-acre development project in Delhi's Aya Nagar.
“This court is of the considered opinion that once the statutory framework itself favours enforcement of contractual obligations, the exceptions restraining such enforcement cannot be expansively construed at the threshold stage so as to defeat the very subject matter of arbitration. Mere invocation of Sections 14 or 41 of the SRA, without a clear and unimpeachable demonstration that the case squarely falls within the statutory prohibitions, cannot by itself compel the Court, at a prima facie stage, to decline protective interim measures.”, the court ruled.
Case Title: Mr. Pathan Imrankhan Zafarullakhan & Anr. v. Microsoft Corporation
Case Number: O.M.P. (COMM) 223/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 610
The Delhi High Court has set aside an arbitral award that directed the transfer of the domain name "exceltotally.in" to Microsoft Corporation. The Court held that confusing similarity with Microsoft's "EXCEL" trademark, by itself, was not enough to establish bad faith under the .IN Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (INDRP).
Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar observed that the arbitrator had not independently examined whether the registrants intentionally sought to deceive users, exploit Microsoft's goodwill, derive an unfair commercial benefit, or otherwise acted in bad faith before ordering transfer of the domain name.
“Mere incorporation of a prior trademark within a domain name, absent surrounding circumstances evidencing intentional deception, diversion, or dishonest commercial exploitation, would not by itself satisfy the threshold contemplated under Clause 4(c) of the INDRP.”
Delhi High Court Appoints Former SC Judge Arun Mishra Arbitrator In NHIDCL Contract Dispute
Case Title : National Highways Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited v Sadhguru Engineers and Allied Services Pvt. Ltd & Others
Case Number: FAO(OS) (COMM) 83/2026, CM APPL. 21826/2026, CM APPL. 21827/2026, CM APPL. 21828/2026, CM APPL. 21829/2026 & CM APPL. 28908/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 595
The Delhi High Court on May 19 dismissed an appeal filed by National Highways Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. (NHIDCL) against an order restraining the encashment of bank guarantees furnished by a contractor.
With the consent of both sides, the court also appointed former Supreme Court judge Justice Arun Mishra as the sole arbitrator to adjudicate disputes arising from a highway project in Assam.
A division bench of Justices Dinesh Mehta and Vinod Kumar upheld a February 24 order passed by a single judge in favour of Sadhguru Engineers and Allied Services Pvt. Ltd., which had been awarded the balance work for four-laning of National Highway-37 on the Jorhat-Jhanji stretch.
The bench observed:
“The opening part of the bank guarantees in question may give an impression that the same are unconditional but if we peruse the complete guarantees, it clearly suggests that such unconditional bank guarantees can be invoked only in existence of certain situations or contingencies. According to us, unless the pre-defined contingencies in the bank guarantees are in existence, the appellant cannot justifiably invoke the bank guarantees.”
Partial Settlement On Interest In Arbitration Not Binding On All Claims: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Atlanta Infra Assets Limited v NHAI
Case Number : O.M.P. (COMM) 152/2022, O.M.P. (COMM) 243/2022
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 622
The Delhi High Court on 26 May held that a partial settlement reached during arbitral proceedings fixing interest for specific claims cannot bind all pending claims and counter-claims, and the Arbitral Tribunal retains full discretion under Section 31(7)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
A Bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh dismissed cross petitions under Section 34 of the Act arising from a dispute between Atlanta Infra Assets Ltd. and the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI), and upheld the arbitral award. It observed:
“As regards the argument of Atlanta for applying separate rates of interest on claims and counterclaims is concerned, the said argument is misconceived. On 24.02.2020, the parties agreed to the rates of interest for Counter Claim Nos. 2 and 6 only, the same is not an agreement of parties qua the binding rate of interest for all claims and counter claims. Hence, the AT was very much within its discretion to award interest at the rate of 10%”.
Delhi High Court Restrains Ex-Franchisee From Using Toni & Guy Brand Pending Arbitration
Case Title : M/s Profile India International v. M/s SS Brothers Associates & Anr.
Case Number: O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 224/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 616
On 26 May, the Delhi High Court granted interim protection under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and restrained a former franchisee from using the “Toni & Guy” trademarks and associated intellectual property pending arbitration.
Justice Mini Pushkarna held that a valid arbitration agreement governed the dispute and protected the franchisor's brand rights during the pendency of proceedings and allowed the petition filed by Profile India International. The Bench observed:
“Considering the submissions made before this Court, till the next date of hearing, the respondents are restrained from operating any Salon bearing the mark 'Toni & Guy' or using the operating manual, system, 'Toni & Guy' Network, license rights or any other trade name, logos, devices or insignia, associated with the petitioner's mark, or from using in any manner, any sign board, or stationary, bills, etc., with the brand name/trademark, i.e., 'Toni & Guy'.”
Delhi HC Grants Interim Protection To Orange Orbit LLP in Rs. 18.6 Cr. Dispute With HostBooks Ltd.
Case Title: Orange Orbit LLP v. HostBooks Limited & Ors.
Case Number: O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 227/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 617
The Delhi High Court recently granted interim protection to Orange Orbit LLP in its Rs. 18.6 crore investment dispute with HostBooks Limited in a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Justice Mini Pushkarna allowed the petition and restrained HostBooks and its founders (Respondent Nos. 2 and 3) from alienating or creating further encumbrances over its assets, business, software, intellectual property and securities pending arbitration till the next date of hearing on 7 October 2026. The Bench held:
“The respondents, whether by themselves, their directors, officers, agents, nominees, assigns or any person claiming through or under them, are restrained from selling, transferring, alienating, disposing of, parting with possession of, or creating any further encumbrance, charge, lien, security interest, pledge or third-party right over, the assets, undertaking, business, software and intellectual property of the respondent no. 1”
Case Title: National Highways Authority of India v. Progressive Constructions Limited
Case Number: FAO(OS)(COMM) 206/2023
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 625
The Delhi High Court on Thursday set aside an arbitral award granting ₹126.77 crore to a highway contractor towards costs and confiscated assets in an Assam road-widening project. The Court held that the arbitral tribunal failed to consider extension-of-time decisions that had rejected those claims.
A Division Bench of Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Vinod Kumar, however, upheld awards totalling ₹35.90 crore towards work executed under the contract and loss of profit.
The court allowed an appeal filed by the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) against an award in favour of Progressive Constructions Limited, which was engaged to widen the Bijni–West Bengal Border section of NH-31C in Assam.
Case Title : Chander Mohan Lall v. DLF Home Developers Limited
Case Number : FAO(OS)(COMM) 100/2019 & CM APPLN. 2389/2020
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 626
The Delhi High Court has recently dismissed a senior advocate's appeal seeking higher compensation for the delayed possession of four commercial office units purchased from DLF Home Developers Limited.
A Division Bench of Justices V. Kameswar Rao and Vinod Kumar upheld compensation at ₹25 per sq. ft. per month. The Court rejected the plea to enhance it to ₹200 per sq. ft. per month on the basis of alleged market rental rates.
"The interpretation given by the learned Arbitrator to Clause 11.4... has been accepted by the learned Single Judge. We do not find the interpretation given by the learned Arbitrator to be unreasonable or perverse for us to interfere in this appeal," the bench ruled.
Delhi High Court Restrains NCERT From Invoking ₹6.09 Crore Bank Guarantee Against Paper Supplier
Case Title : M/s Bafna Global Venture Pvt. Ltd. v. National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT) & Anr.
Case Number : O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 250/2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 639
The Delhi High Court has restrained the National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT) from taking coercive steps to invoke a ₹6.09 crore bank guarantee furnished by a paper supplier.
It also directed that no coercive action be taken pursuant to NCERT's order terminating the supply contract and debarring the company for two years, until the next hearing on July 20.
Justice Mini Pushkarna passed the interim order in an arbitration petition filed by Bafna Global Venture Pvt. Ltd. challenging NCERT's June 22 order. After considering the company's submissions, the court held that the matter required consideration.
Observing so, the court directed, "Considering the submissions made before this Court, it is directed that no coercive action shall be taken for invoking the Bank Guarantee bearing no. 0005NDDG00220426 dated 10th December, 2025 amounting to Rs. 6,09,20,000/-, in pursuance to the Order dated 22nd June, 2026, invoking the Bank Guarantee, till the next date of hearing."
Gujarat High Court
Gujarat High Court Temporarily Halts Arbitration Over Vapi Lakes Lease Agreements
Case Title : Vapi Municipal Corporation (Erstwhile Vapi Nagarpalika) v. Shashijit Infra Projects Limited & Anr.
Case Number: R/Special Civil Application Nos. 7763 of 2026, 7765 of 2026 and 7766 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(GUJ) 67
The Gujarat High Court on Monday directed that no further proceedings be conducted in arbitration proceedings between Vapi Municipal Corporation and Shashijit Infra Projects Limited arising from lease agreements relating to Lakhamdev Lake, Dungra Lake, and Chala Lake in Vapi. The direction will remain in force until the next hearing before the Court on June 18.
Justice L.S. Pirzada passed the order while issuing notice in petitions filed by the Municipal Corporation challenging the continuation of the arbitration proceedings.
The court observed,
"As Special Civil Application no. 157 of 2026 is pending before this Court and the Civil Application no. 1 of 2026 in Special Civil Application no. 130 of 2026 moved by the respondent no. 1 is also pending and the next date of hearing is fixed on 18.06.2026, the respondent no. 2 may not proceed with the arbitration proceedings and not pass any order till the next date of hearing."
Case Title : NHAI v Patel Karsanbhai and Others
Case Number : R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2086 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(GUJ)73
The Gujarat High Court on 8 June held that an arbitral award determining compensation under the National Highways Act, 1956 cannot be interfered with under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 where the Arbitrator has assessed market value in accordance with Section 26 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 based on the evidence on record.
A Bench of Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice D.N. Ray dismissed an appeal filed by the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) and upheld the Commercial Court's order refusing to set aside the arbitral award in favour of Patel Karsanbhai and other landowners, which determined compensation by adopting the highest jantri rate. The judges observed:
“Further Section 26 of the Act of 2013 provides various criteria in assessment and determination of the market value of the land, one of which is jantri value. And the factual inquiry has been made by the Arbitrator in accordance with the provisions of Section 26 of the Act' 2013 based on the material collected by him and the evidence adduced by the parties, which cannot be re-examined by this Court by re-appreciation of evidence, as it would hit on the face of scope of judicial scrutiny under Sections 34 and 37 of the Act' 1996.”
Works Contract Disputes Must Go To Statutory Tribunal, Not Private Arbitration: Gujarat High Court
Case Title : M/s. Soham Consultancy Services v. Limbdi Nagarpalika
Case Number : Petition Under Arbitration Act No. 71 of 2024
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(GUJ)74
The Gujarat High Court on 19 June held that payment disputes arising from agreements which are, in substance, public works contracts cannot be referred to private arbitration under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and must instead be adjudicated by the Gujarat Public Works Contracts Disputes Arbitration Tribunal under the Public Works Contracts Disputes Arbitration Tribunal Act, 1992.
Justice D.N. Ray dismissed a Section 11 petition filed by Soham Consultancy Services seeking appointment of an arbitrator in its Rs. 38.96 lakh payment dispute with Limbdi Nagarpalika. The Bench held:
"A conjoint reading of the 'scope of work' and the understanding of the petitioner as to its own scope of work as reflected in the pleadings before this Court leave no manner of doubt that the amount which is sought to be claimed from the respondent-Nagarpalika cannot be simply termed as 'fees' but rather as 'consideration' for a works contract."
Case Title : Pandya Naresh Chandra Through POA Gaurang Bhavsar v. Shalin Infrastructure & Ors.
Case Number : R/Special Civil Application No. 558 of 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(GUJ)75
On 22 June, the Gujarat High Court held that non-production of a Power of Attorney in arbitral proceedings is a curable procedural defect and cannot, by itself, justify rejection of a claim or termination of arbitration proceedings.
Justice Niral R. Mehta allowed a writ petition filed by a homebuyer and set aside an arbitral tribunal's order rejecting his claim against Shalin Infrastructure, restoring the arbitral proceedings. The Bench observed:
“The jurisdiction vested in an arbitral tribunal is intended to facilitate adjudication of disputes on their substantive merits and not to defeat legitimate claims by resorting to hyper-technical procedural objections, particularly where the defect is capable of rectification. In that view of the matter, the rejection of the claim solely on account of non-production of the Power of Attorney amounts to an exercise of jurisdiction not sanctioned by the provisions of the Act and is therefore liable to be characterised as jurisdictionally erroneous.”
Karnataka High Court
Case Title : AUTOMOTIVE AXLES vs SRI K.S. SRIDHAR
Case Number : COMMERCIAL APPEAL NO.391 OF 2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 77
The Karnataka High Court on 1 June, partly set aside an arbitral award of Rs.79.58 lakh in favour of contractor K.S. Sridhar, holding that several claims allowed by the arbitrator lacked evidentiary support and were patently illegal.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C.M. Poonacha partly allowed the appeal filed by Automotive Axles Employees Housing Co-operative Society Ltd., modifying the arbitral award while sustaining certain monetary components in favour of the contractor. The judges observed:
“In view of the aforementioned, the award of the Tribunal on claim Nos.2, 3 and 6 are patently illegal and are accordingly set aside. The award of the Tribunal on claim Nos.1, 4 and 5 are not interfered with. The above appeal is partly allowed in the aforementioned terms.”
Case Title : D. Arun Reddy & Anr. v. Late Muni Reddy & Ors.
Case Number : W.P. No.3571 of 2023 (GM-CPC)
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(KAR) 74
The Karnataka High Court has recently held that a dispute arising out of a Joint Development Agreement for a residential apartment project in Bengaluru was not a commercial dispute and could not be entertained by a Commercial Court, while setting aside an order that had assumed jurisdiction over a challenge to an arbitral award.
Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju observed, “the property in dispute, which was developed pursuant to the JDA, cannot be said to be immovable property used exclusively in trade or commerce within the meaning of Section 2(1)(c)(vii) of the CC Act. The dispute pertains to development and allocation of residential apartments. Both parties are individuals and share the redeveloped flats and area as re-constructed. There is no material to indicate that the property was actually used for trade or commerce. Consequently, Section 2(1)(c)(vii) of the CC Act would not be attracted to the facts of the present case.”
Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Part Of Arbitral Award Over GST Computation On Non-Tendered Works
Case Title: NATIONAL CENTRE FOR BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES vs URC CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS
Case Number : COMMERCIAL APPEAL NO. 383 OF 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 90
The Karnataka High Court has partly set aside an arbitral award in a dispute between the National Centre for Biological Sciences (NCBS) and URC Constructions Pvt Ltd.
The court held that the arbitral tribunal ignored material evidence while concluding that the value of non-tendered items was ₹9.65 crore exclusive of GST.
A division bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C.M. Poonacha found that invoices and other records on the arbitral record showed that at least some GST was included in the ₹9.65 crore figure. The tribunal had failed to consider that material.
The bench held, “In view of the above, the impugned award, to the extent that it proceeds on the basis that the value of NT items exclusive of GST is `9,65,91,596/-, is set aside. The said conclusion ignores that the said amount is an aggregate of the amount included in the invoices and bills, and at least some of those invoices, which are on record, expressly include 18% GST. Failure to consider such relevant and vital evidence renders the impugned award vulnerable on the grounds of patent illegality.”
Case Title: Smt G.S Sridevi v. Shri H Mahadev Goud
Case Number : Writ Petition No. 10641 of 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(KAR) 92
The Karnataka High Court has recently held that an order rejecting a jurisdictional objection by an arbitral tribunal cannot ordinarily be challenged through a writ petition while arbitral proceedings are pending. Such a challenge must ordinarily await the arbitral award stage.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj delivered the ruling while declining to interfere with an order of a sole arbitrator who had rejected a challenge to the tribunal's jurisdiction in a dispute arising from an Agreement of Sale.
“Thus, until an arbitral award is passed, an order rejecting a plea under Section 16 of the A & C Act is ordinarily not amenable to an independent challenge. The statutory scheme clearly postpones such a challenge to the stage of proceedings under Section 34,” the court held.
Patna High Court
Correction Of Contradictory Operative Direction Does Not Amount To Review Of Award: Patna High Court
Case Title: M/s Ganesh Foundry and Castings Limited v. The Bihar State Electricity Board (now M/s Bihar State Power (Holding) Company Limited) & Ors.
Case Number : Commercial Appeal No. 6 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(PAT) 15
The Patna High Court on 18 June held that an arbitral tribunal may correct an apparent contradiction or computation error under Section 33 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, where the correction aligns the operative portion of the award with the tribunal's findings and does not amount to a review on merits.
A Division Bench of Justices Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Kumar Manish dismissed the appeal filed by Ganesh Foundry and Castings Limited and upheld the additional arbitral award as well as the Commercial Court's order refusing to interfere with it. It observed:
“To this Court, it appears that the cluster of words such as 'any computation errors, any clerical or typographical errors or any other errors of a similar nature occurring in the award' are to be given a purposive interpretation in the context in which this provision has been incorporated in the statute. In a world of commercial exigencies this provision has to be interpreted in such a way that it serves the purpose behind incorporating Section 33 of the Act of 1996.”
Case Title : Bihar State Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. v. Amit Kumar
Case Number: Miscellaneous Appeal No. 485 of 2022
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(PAT) 16
The Patna High Court on 18 June allowed an appeal filed by the Bihar State Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. against the contractor operating Nalanda Cafeteria, set aside the order of the Additional District Judge rejecting a Section 8 application, and directed reference of the dispute to arbitration under Clause 40 of the allotment letter.
Justice Khatim Reza held that conduct of parties such as acceptance of an allotment letter, payment of licence fees and continued commercial operation can establish a binding intention to arbitrate even in the absence of a formally executed agreement. The Bench observed:
“Moreover, the plaintiff has acted upon the allotment letter and continued the commercial business for running Nalanda Cafeteria, Nalanda and accepted to pay the payment of license fees for succeeding year. The clause contained in the allotment letter clearly stipulate a reference to arbitration deserve to be construed as an arbitration clause.”
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Case Title: Amar India Pvt. Ltd. v Union of India and Others
Case Number: AC No. 55 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(MP) 39
The Indore Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court on 4 May appointed an arbitrator in a dispute between Western Railway and a service provider after rejecting the Railway's contention that the dispute was non-arbitrable, holding that claims for payment of dues for work already executed fall outside the “excepted matters” under the contract.
Justice Pavan Kumar Dwivedi allowed the petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, observing:
“In view of the above analysis of the facts of the present case and the relevant clauses of the GCC this Court is of the view that the issue of payment of dues as sought to be referred to arbitral tribunal by the applicant is not covered under the excepted matters thus the same is arbitrable.”
Case Title : Aurionpro Solutions Ltd. v. Madhya Pradesh Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, Bhopal & Ors.
Case Number : W.P. No. 2350 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(MP) 38
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that conciliation under the MSMED Act cannot be reduced to an “eyewash”, while setting aside an award passed by the Madhya Pradesh Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council against Aurionpro Solutions Ltd.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Vinay Saraf held that the Council could not proceed to arbitration without first conducting and terminating conciliation proceedings in the manner prescribed by law.
Observing that conciliation has statutory recognition and that the conciliator is required to assist the parties in an independent and fair manner, the Bench observed:
“The manner of conducting conciliation and even the role to be played by the conciliator to assist the parties in an independent and fair manner to arrive at a settlement has been statutorily proscribed. There is a legal sanctity attached the entire process of conciliation. It can not be made a mere eyewash as has been done in the present case.”
Case Title: Ashish and Others v. National Highway Authority of India
Case Number : Arbitration Appeal No. 157 of 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (MP) 45
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that a party cannot seek exclusion of time spent before a wrong forum under the Limitation Act if it fails to explain why it did not challenge the arbitral award within the prescribed period
Justice Deepak Khot delivered the ruling while dismissing an appeal filed by Ashish and others against the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI). The Court upheld an order rejecting their challenge to an arbitral award as barred by limitation.
The court observed that a litigant seeking the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act must show that it pursued proceedings before the wrong forum with due diligence and in good faith.
"For the purpose of entertaining an application beyond statutory period applying the provision of section 14, the principle which is to be followed is that the person prosecuting or challenging the order or award, decree under the wrong advice, has chosen a wrong forum with due diligence and in good faith."
Final Termination Order Not Needed To Invoke Arbitration: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Case Title: M/s Natural Petroleum v Indian Oil Corporation Limited
Case Number: AC No. 150 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(MP) 42
The Madhya Pradesh High Court on 13 May held that a show cause notice proposing termination, coupled with a reply denying the allegations, constitutes a “dispute” sufficient to invoke arbitration, even in the absence of a final termination order.
Justice Pavan Kumar Dwivedi rejected Indian Oil Corporation Limited's (IOCL) objection that the petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was premature and appointed Justice (Retd.) Virender Singh as the sole Arbitrator. The Bench held:
“It was for the parties to decide the mode of dispute resolution at the time of execution of the agreement. The respondent agreed for the arbitration as a mode of resolution of dispute with open eyes and without qualifying it with any such condition that the concerned authority must first pass order and supply the same to the applicant in accordance with the guidelines and only thereafter arbitration may be resorted to. No such qualification exists in the arbitration agreement. Thus, the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that the present application for arbitration is premature is hereby rejected.”
Case Title : M/s Lite Bite Foods Pvt. Ltd. v Airport Authority of India
Case Number: MISC. PETITION No. 2470 of 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (MP) 44
The Madhya Pradesh High Court on 27 May held that courts cannot grant an unconditional stay on the execution of an arbitral money award unless the award is vitiated by fraud or corruption or the award debtor establishes an “exceptional case”.
A Division Bench of Justices Vivek Jain and Ajay Kumar Nirankari allowed the petition filed by Lite Bite Foods Pvt. Ltd., set aside the District Court's order granting an unconditional stay in favour of the Airports Authority of India (AAI), holding that a court cannot mechanically rely on Lifestyle Equities C.V. v. Amazon Technologies Inc. without first examining whether the case satisfies the legal threshold for granting such relief. The Bench observed:
“In the present case, the District Judge has applied Lifestyle (Supra) in the case of arbitration, but for that, it ought to have held the case to fall within the parameters of the test lid therein. However, it did not return any prima facie finding even as per Lifestyle (supra)… There is no finding in terms of para 138 of Lifestyle (supra) that whether the decree is perverse, whether it is riddled with patent illegalities, is facially untenable, or any other exceptional cause similar in nature.”
MP High Court Refers Gopal Enterprises-NCL Dispute To Arbitration Despite Use Of 'May' in Clause
Case Title: Gopal Enterprises (Partnership Firm) v. The Northern Coalfields Limited (A Miniratna Company and Subsidiary of Coal India Limited)
Case Number: ARBITRATION CASE No. 11 of 2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (MP) 46
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has referred a payment dispute between Gopal Enterprises and Northern Coalfields Limited (NCL) to arbitration.
It held that the use of the word "may" in the contract's dispute resolution clause did not dilute the parties' intention to resolve disputes through arbitration.
Justice Deepak Khot rejected NCL's objections and appointed Justice H.P. Singh, a former judge of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, as the sole arbitrator.
"The intention of the parties to enter into an arbitration agreement must be inferred from the terms of the agreement. Where the terms of an agreement clearly reveal the intention of the parties to submit their disputes to a private tribunal for resolution and to accept the decision of the tribunal as binding, the agreement constitutes an arbitration agreement," the court observed.
Case Title: JVS Foods Pvt. Ltd. v. M.P. State Agro Industries Development Corporation Ltd.
Case Number: ARBITRATION CASE No. 90 of 2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (MP) 48
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that a party cannot "blow hot and cold" on arbitration by opposing arbitral reference after having accepted or relied on arbitration in similar disputes arising from the same agreement.
The court consequently appointed a sole arbitrator to resolve a dispute over the valuation of shares following a proposed exit from a shareholders' agreement.
Justice Deepak Khot passed the order in a dispute between JVS Foods Pvt. Ltd. and M.P. State Agro Industries Development Corporation Ltd. The court appointed former High Court judge Justice Alok Verma as the sole arbitrator and directed that the proceedings be conducted at Bhopal.
“Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, the non-applicant cannot blow hot and cold according to their whims and wishes when it comes to the appointment of the arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the parties. As in the present case the dispute is admitted, the non-applicant themselves have categorically replied the notice of arbitration by saying that still there are negotiations going on, therefore, it is appropriate that the parties should be relegated to the arbitration to resolve their dispute.”
Calcutta High Court
Case Title: M/S. MHPL INFRA JV AND ORS. VERSUS RITES LIMITED AND ANR.
Case Number: AP-COM 153 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 147
The Calcutta High Court on Friday appointed a sole arbitrator to adjudicate disputes between MHPL Infra JV and RITES Ltd arising from a railway infrastructure contract connected with the Buxar Thermal Power Project at Chausa, Bihar.
Justice Gaurang Kanth appointed Advocate Sabir Ahmed as the sole arbitrator. The Court held that a valid arbitration clause existed between the parties. It also found that the petition for appointment of an arbitrator had been filed within the prescribed limitation period.
"Applying the aforesaid settled legal position to the facts of the present case, this Court finds that both the conditions precedent for exercise of jurisdiction under Section 11 of the Act are satisfied. As regards the first condition, namely the existence of a valid arbitration agreement, it is anadmitted position between the parties that an arbitration clause exists in Clause 25 of the General Conditions of Contract as amended through Correction Slip No. 3 of the agreement dated August 26, 2021,” the court ruled.
Case Title : KOBELCO CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED VS LARA MINING AND ANR.
Case Number: AO-COM/18/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 149
The Calcutta High Court has left open the question of whether an arbitration agreement contained in two Master Facility Agreements was validly assigned to Kobelco Construction Equipment India Pvt. Ltd. through a settlement with SREI Equipment Finance Ltd.
The Court held that the issue should be decided by the appropriate forum and not in the present appeals.
A Division Bench of Justices Debangsu Basak and Md. Shabbar Rashidi ruled that findings made by a Single Judge on the non-existence of an arbitration agreement would not bind future proceedings.
“In such view, the issue as to whether or not, there exist a valid arbitration agreement between the parties is kept open to be decided by the appropriate forum. The observations and the findings returned by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment and order will not prejudice any of the parties in the subsequent proceedings. All points raised by the parties in this regard are kept open to be decided by the appropriate forum.”, the court ruled.
Case Title : KANCHAN KONWER AND ANR. VERSUS TUSHAR KANTI JANA
Case Number : AP 48 OF 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 152
On 18 June, the Calcutta High Court held that pecuniary jurisdiction alone cannot confer jurisdiction under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, in the absence of territorial jurisdiction, reiterating that both conditions must coexist for a court to entertain a challenge to an arbitral award.
Justice Gaurang Kanth dismissed a petition filed by Kanchan Konwer and another, the widow and son of late Tapan Konwer, who challenged an arbitral award passed in favour of developer Tushar Kanti Jana, holding that the Original Side of the Calcutta High Court lacked territorial jurisdiction to hear the Section 34 petition. He held:
“Pecuniary jurisdiction by itself does not confer jurisdiction upon a court in the absence of territorial jurisdiction. The two requirements operate cumulatively and not alternatively. A court may possess pecuniary competence to entertain a matter; however, unless territorial jurisdiction is also established in accordance with law, such court cannot assume jurisdiction merely on the basis of the valuation of the claim.”
Case Title : Rajpath Contractors and Engineers Ltd. v. Union of India and Anr.
Case Number : AP-COM 247 of 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 156
The Calcutta High Court has recently referred a ₹38.07 crore dispute arising out of an Eastern Railway bridge construction contract to arbitration, reiterating that the existence of a No Claim Certificate does not, by itself, render disputes non-arbitrable.
Justice Gaurang Kanth constituted a three-member arbitral tribunal headed by former Supreme Court judge Justice Pinaki Chandra Ghose, with Senior Advocates Ritzu Ghosal and Saptangshu Basu as co-arbitrators.
"It is well settled that the existence of a No Claim Certificate, by itself, does not oust the jurisdiction of the Arbitral Tribunal or render the disputes non-arbitrable," the court observed.
Case Title : Vizag Seaport Private Limited v. Steel Authority of India Limited
Case Number : APO 112 of 2022 with IA No. GA/1/2022
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 159
The Calcutta High Court has recently dismissed an appeal filed by Vizag Seaport Private Limited (VSPL) and upheld an earlier order setting aside a majority arbitral award.
The award had directed the Steel Authority of India Ltd. (SAIL) to pay nearly ₹19.68 crore towards claimed demurrage and storage charges.
The court held that the parties' Short Term Agreement (STA) did not provide for such charges. It also held that VSPL had waived its right to claim them by not seeking to include such a provision when the contract was reviewed.
A division bench of Justices Arijit Banerjee and Om Narayan Rai observed that the agreement contained no express provision permitting recovery of demurrage charges.
"The terms and conditions of the STA do not expressly provide for demurrage charges. Therefore, if the same were to be levied the same ought to have been included while reviewing the terms. Not having done so would mean waiver of the appellant's right to claim such charge.", the court held.
Madras High Court
Case Title: Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. SPML Infra Limited & Ors.
Case Numbers: O.S.A. No. 135 of 2020 & C.M.P. No. 6403 of 2020
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 141
The Madras High Court has held that a majority arbitral award does not become invalid merely because a dissenting arbitrator awarded lesser amounts.
The court dismissed a challenge by the Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board to an award in favour of SPML Infra Limited arising out of a Chennai sewerage pipeline project.
A division bench of Justices P. Velmurugan and K. Govindarajan Thilakavadi observed:
"The Tribunal consisted of three Arbitrators and the impugned Award is a majority Award. Section 29 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 expressly recognises decision-making by majority. Therefore, the mere fact that one Arbitrator rendered a minority opinion granting lesser amounts does not render the majority Award invalid."
Madras High Court Affirms Fresh Arbitration In ₹2.5 Cr. Isha Foundation-BSNL Call Billing Dispute
Case Title: The Administrator, Isha Foundation v BSNL
Case Number : OSA(CAD) No. 148 of 2022
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 142
The Madras High Court on 9 June dismissed Isha Foundation's appeal, upheld a Single Judge's order setting aside the arbitral award, and directed a fresh adjudication of its dispute with Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL).
A Division Bench of Justices P. Velmurugan and Govindarajan Thilakavadi held that an Arbitral Tribunal cannot reject Call Detail Records (CDRs) and decide a dispute involving abnormal call traffic without obtaining expert opinion where technical issues require investigation and analysis. The Bench held:
“... While so, the cause for abnormal call volume was necessarily to be investigated and analysed and it is not possible without an expert opinion. But, the Arbitral Tribunal proceeded to record its findings and held that it is too hard to suggest that all the disputed calls originated from ISHA's GSM PRI. The learned Arbitrator ought to have sought for expert opinion before arriving at such conclusion.”
Case Title: K. Prem Kumar v. Escape Artists Motion Pictures & Ors. and K. Punniyamoorthy v. Escape Artists Motion Pictures & Ors.
Case Number : OSA(CAD) Nos. 62 & 63 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 148
The Madras High Court has recently upheld an order permitting the release of filmmaker Gautham Vasudev Menon's long-delayed Tamil spy thriller 'Dhruva Natchathiram'.
The court held that a judicially supervised mechanism governing the film's revenues strikes a workable balance between enabling its release and protecting competing claims over its proceeds.
A Division Bench of Justices P. Velmurugan and K. Govindarajan Thilakavadi dismissed appeals filed by film financiers K. Prem Kumar and K. Punniyamoorthy.
The appeals challenged an April 30 order of a single judge that allowed the release of the Vikram- starrer movie subject to safeguards. Those safeguards included routing all receipts and disbursements through a dedicated bank account overseen by court-appointed observers.
"Having regard to the nature of the arrangement made by the learned Single Judge, we are of the considered view that the impugned order ensures a workable balance between facilitating the release of the film and ensuring that the receipt and utilisation of its revenues remain subject to judicial supervision," the bench observed.
"We do not find the exercise of discretion by the learned Single Judge to be arbitrary, perverse, or suffering from any patent illegality warranting interference in appellate jurisdiction," it added.
High Court Cannot Review Section 11 Arbitrator Appointment After Becoming Functus Officio: Madras HC
Case Title: M/s Maavadi Soft Tech Ventures (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. M/s Anir Tech Park Private Limited
Case Number: Rev.APLO Nos. 14 to 16 of 2026 in Arb.O.P. (Com. Div.) Nos. 75 to 77 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 145
The Madras High Court on 8 June held that once it appoints an arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, it becomes functus officio and cannot later review or invalidate that appointment because the Act does not confer such power.
Justice Abdul Quddhose dismissed review applications filed by Maavadi Soft Tech Ventures (India) Pvt. Ltd., True Value Homes India Private Limited and N. Ravichandran against Anir Tech Park Private Limited, refusing to revisit the Court's 22 April 2025 order appointing former Orissa High Court Chief Justice Dr. Justice S. Muralidhar as the sole arbitrator. He observed:
"The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has not granted the High Court the power to review its order passed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act appointing an Arbitrator. The High Court appointing the Arbitrator under Section 11 of the Act also becomes 'Functus officio' on the appointment of the arbitrator and the said appointment cannot be invalidated by the same Court which passed the order."
Case Title Clasic Farms (Chennai) Limited v. N. Venkatasubbu & Another
Case Number LPA No. 1 of 2022
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 150
The Madras High Court has dismissed an appeal against the closure of a contempt petition alleging that a property was sold in violation of an interim injunction obtained under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
A division bench of Justices Anita Sumanth and Sunder Mohan noted that while arbitral proceedings had continued until 2018, the appellant had taken no steps thereafter to revive them. In those circumstances, the Bench found no reason to interfere with the order closing the contempt petition.
"Having not chosen to pursue the arbitration, and literally abandoning the same, we are of the considered view that nothing would be gained by his continuing interest in the contempt petition alone. The effect of any order passed in the contempt petition would only be to punish the contemnors," the bench observed.
Case Title : National Highways Authority of India v. District Collector, Tiruppur & Ors. (Batch Matters)
Case Number : Arb. Appeal Nos. 18 of 2026 and connected matters
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 152
The Madras High Court has recently set aside a Tiruppur district court's direction granting landowners an additional 12% compensation in a batch of land acquisition disputes arising from the six-laning of the Chengapalli-Walayar stretch of National Highway-47.
A Division Bench of Justices P. Velmurugan and K. Govindarajan Thilakavadi held that landowners are entitled to solatium and interest in acquisitions under the National Highways Act. However, they cannot claim the additional 12% amount under Section 23(1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
The bench noted that the Supreme Court in National Highways Authority of India v. Tehal Singh had clarified that Section 23(1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act does not apply to acquisitions under the National Highways Act.
"The Hon'ble Apex Court clarifications affirmed that Section 23(1-A) (the Additional 12% amount for the period from the notification to the Award) does not apply to acquisitions undertaken under the National Highways Act. Therefore, 12% additional compensation awarded under Section 23(1-A) granted by the learned District Judge under NHAI proceedings is unsustainable," the court observed.
Arbitration Plea Must Be Filed Before Leave-to-Defend Application In Summary Suit: Madras High Court
Case Title : ETA General Private Limited v. Fujitsu General (Thailand) Company Limited
Case Number : O.S.A. (CAD) No. 1 of 2024 and C.M.P. Nos. 167, 168 & 10897 of 2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 143
The Madras High Court has recently held that a defendant in a summary suit cannot seek reference of the dispute to arbitration after first filing an application for leave to defend, ruling that such an application constitutes the first statement on the substance of the dispute.
A Division Bench of Justices P. Velmurugan and K. Govindarajan Thilakavadi rendered the ruling while dismissing an appeal filed by ETA General Private Limited against an order refusing to refer a USD 19 million recovery dispute with Fujitsu General (Thailand) Company Limited to arbitration.
The bench observed, “Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act clearly says that before submitting the first statement, the party has to invoke Section 8 and file the application for referring the matter to arbitration. As stated already, Order XXXVII of the Code is a procedural law and only general in nature. Whereas Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is a special law which prevails over the general law and therefore, it cannot be stated that in the suit filed under Order XXXVII, the defendant has to first file the application for leave to defend and thereafter can file the application under Section 8. Therefore, we are of the view that the application filed for leave to defend in summary suit itself is the first statement.”
Madras High Court Restores Arbitral Award, Says District Judge Erred In Calling It 'Hypothetical'
Case Title : G. Selvam v. Union of India represented by the Executive Engineer, Madurai Central Division, Central PWD, Madurai
Case Number : Arb. Appeal (MAD) No.58 of 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 161
The Madras High Court at Madurai has recently set aside an order of the Madurai Principal District Judge insofar as it annulled an arbitral award granting ₹14.04 lakh as an early completion bonus to a contractor in a dispute with the Union of India over the construction of a Kendriya Vidyalaya school building at Sivagangai.
The bench of Justice V. Lakshminarayanan held that the Principal District Judge's characterisation of the arbitral award as "hypothetical" reflected non-application of mind.
Restoring the award, the court observed that the arbitrator had taken a plausible view, based on documentary evidence, that had the Union of India supplied cement, steel, structural drawings, and the colour scheme in time, the contractor would have completed the work 92 days in advance and earned the contractual bonus.
The bench observed, "It was not a hypothetical conclusion as concluded by the learned Principal District Judge. In order to arrive at the conclusion, he referred to page no.4 of CSF as well as Ex.C6. Hence, the conclusion arrived at by the learned Principal District Judge that it is a hypothetical conclusion and therefore, requires interference, shows non-application of mind by the learned Principal District Judge."
Madras High Court Stays Release Of Dileep-Starrer 'Neekkam' Over Financial Dispute
Case Title : A.V. Anoop v. Sandeep Chandrasenan Nair & Ors.
Case Number : O.A.No.605 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 153
The Madras High Court has restrained the release, distribution, and exhibition of the Malayalam film 'Neekkam', starring Dileep and directed by Jagan Shaji Kailas.
The temporary order came on a plea filed by A.V. Anoop, proprietor of AVA Productions, who claimed a contractual charge over the film after alleging that its producer had failed to repay advances extended under earlier production agreements.
Justice K. Kumaresh Babu granted ad-interim protection to AVA Productions. The court also issued notice to the respondents and made it returnable in four weeks.
Madras High Court Allows Telecom Contractor To Bid In Fresh BSNL Tender Pending Arbitration
Case Title : Universal Tele Services v. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited
Case Number: Arb.O.P.(Com.Div.) No.349 of 2026 and O.A. Nos.445 & 446 of 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 158
The Madras High Court has granted interim relief to Universal Tele Services by allowing it to submit a bid in a fresh Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) tender for telecom operations.
The dispute over the termination of its contracts will meanwhile be decided through arbitration. The court directed that BSNL should process the bid only after the arbitrator passes orders.
Justice K. Kumaresh Babu passed the order. The court also clarified an earlier order appointing former High Court judge Justice V. Bharathidasan as sole arbitrator. It made clear that he would adjudicate disputes arising under two agreements covering BSNL's North and Central operational areas. The arbitrator was also given the discretion to deal with both disputes jointly or simultaneously.
The court observed, "This Court is of the view that the applicant could be permitted to submit the tender and the same shall be processed only after orders are passed by the learned Arbitrator."
Manipur High Court
Case Title : MWC Market Services Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Manipur & Ors.
Case Number : Arbitration Appeal No. 1 of 2022 with MC(ARB.A.) No. 1 of 2022
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (MAN) 2
The Manipur High Court on 30 May held that compensation under a liquidated damages clause cannot be awarded without evidence of actual loss where such loss is capable of proof, and partly set aside an arbitral award arising from a dispute over delayed commencement of online lottery draws.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice M. Sundar and Justice A. Bimol Singh partly allowed MWC Market Services Pvt. Ltd.'s appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, setting aside the award of Rs. 10 crore in damages in favour of the State of Manipur while upholding the award of Rs. 19.48 lakh towards additional infrastructure costs. The judges held:
“The award of liquidated damages to the tune of ₹10 crores qua a claim of ₹35 crores without any evidence much less proof by adopting not even a rough and ready approximation approach but fixing it at ₹10 crores without any basis is clearly a patent illegality which goes to the root of the matter.”
Uttarakhand High Court
Case Title : The Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. M/s Vigyan Chemical Industries
Case Number : Appeal From Order No. 600 of 2012
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(UTT) 10
The Uttarakhand High Court has recently upheld an arbitral award directing Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. to pay ₹34,000 to Vigyan Chemical Industries in an insurance claim dispute.
The court rejected the insurer's contention that acceptance of a lower amount against the claim prevented the insured from seeking the balance through arbitration.
Justice Ravindra Maithani heard the appeal filed by Oriental Insurance against a District Judge's order refusing to set aside the award.
Observing that acceptance of a part payment did not bar the insured from pursuing the remaining claim, the court held,
"What is argued by the respondent is that the receipt was provided by the appellant and the respondent was made to sign on a doted lines. This fact is not disputed by learned counsel for the appellant. It is not disputed that the appellant had made claim for Rs.1,79,000/-. When he was not given the entire claimed amount, he referred to the matter to the Arbitrator. It cannot be said that under such facts and circumstances the respondent was precluded or estopped from referring the matter to the Arbitrator. The Arbitrator has decided the matter in accordance with law."
Telangana High Court
Case Title : M/s Ashok Kumar Rakesh Kumar v M/s Andhra Pradesh Foods, Hyderabad and Others
Case Number: C.M.A No. 715 of 2005
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (TEL) 33
The Telangana High Court on 4 May held that where a contract expressly provides for forfeiture of security and recovery of differential costs, the aggrieved party may invoke both remedies upon breach.
A Division Bench of Justices Moushumi Bhattacharya and Gadi Praveen Kumar dismissed the appeal filed by Ashok Rakesh Kumar and upheld an arbitral award in favour of the A.P. Nutrition Council (APNC), finding no patent illegality in the Tribunal granting both forms of relief. The judges held:
“The appellant contended that the procurement of sugar amounts to unilateral modification of the contract but the material on record clearly shows that the purchase of sugar was a temporary measure, necessitated by the failure of the appellant to supply jaggery powder and was essential to ensure uninterrupted implementation of a public welfare programme.”
Self-Created Urgency No Ground To Skip Pre-Institution Mediation: Telangana High Court
Case Title: Trident Chemphar Limited v. Minas De Benga & Another
Case Number: Civil Revision Petition No. 1511 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (TEL) 36
The Telangana High Court has held that a party cannot avoid the mandatory pre-institution mediation process in a commercial dispute by claiming urgency that is of its own making.
A Division Bench of Justices Nagesh Bheemapaka and Vakiti Ramakrishna Reddy dismissed a plea by Trident Chemphar Limited. The company had challenged an order returning its proposed suit against ongoing ICC arbitration proceedings for failure to first undergo pre-institution mediation.
“The urgency, if any, is thus of Petitioner's own making, arising from its decision to wait until the Majority Award was passed before approaching the civil court. Self-created urgency, as already noticed, does not satisfy the requirement of the proviso to Section 12A. To permit Petitioner to bypass the salutary mandate of Section 12A on the basis of such urgency would set a dangerous precedent and effectively, permit any party to an arbitration to avoid the requirement of pre-institution mediation by the simple expedient of waiting until an adverse procedural order is passed before rushing to court,” the Court observed.
Case Title: J. Srisailam Reddy & Another v. K. Srisailam & Others
Case Number: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 209 of 2013
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (TEL) 37
The Telangana High Court on 8 June 2026 held that an unproven resolution stated to have been passed by a trade association cannot be treated as an arbitral award and cannot operate as res judicata to bar statutory arbitration proceedings under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Justice Suddala Chalapathi Rao dismissed an appeal filed by J. Srisailam Reddy and another and upheld the arbitral award in favour of Vishnu Rice Mill, affirming the order of the District Court under Section 37 of the Act. He held:
“the petitioners have not proved that the proceedings have been drawn by following the procedure under the Act to hold that the resolution Ex.R8 to be arbitral award and thus, in the considered view of this Court, the said resolution is not amply proved to be genuine to hold or as an award much less it does not operate as res judicata so to disentitle the respondents from approaching this Court under Section 11(6) of the Act.”
Notice Issued In Name Of Non-Existing Entity Vitiates Entire Arbitral Process: Telangana High Court
Case Title : Rihim Developers Private Limited Vs Ramana Rao
Case Number: CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 643 OF 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (TEL) 38
The Telangana High Court has held that a statutory notice issued in the name of a non-existing entity is a nullity and vitiates the entire arbitral process.
The court made the observation while setting aside an arbitral tribunal's order passed in proceedings initiated on the basis of a Section 21 notice issued to a dissolved company.
A division bench of Justice K. Lakshman and Justice B.R. Madhusudhan Rao observed, “Any statutory notice issued in the name of a non-existing entity is a nullity and vitiates the entire process.”
Case Title : Cinepolis India Private Limited v. Sree Thirumala Infra Private Limited
Case Number : Arbitration Application No.108 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (TEL) 39
The Telangana High Court has appointed former Acting Chief Justice Justice P. Naveen Rao as an independent arbitrator to adjudicate disputes between Cinepolis India Private Limited and Sree Thirumala Infra Private Limited.
The order was passed by Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh after the parties agreed to the appointment. The court also took on record the statutory disclosure submitted by the proposed arbitrator.
Bombay High Court
Bombay High Court Orders Disclosure Of Bhutan Contract In Xcalibur–Oil Field Exclusivity Dispute
Case Title: Oil Field Instrumentation India Pvt. Ltd. v. Xcalibur Multiphysics Group S.L. & Ors.
Case Number : Commercial Arbitration Petition (L) No. 16156 of 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 308
On 8 June, the Bombay High Court held that parties cannot shield alleged breaches of exclusivity obligations under a joint venture agreement from judicial scrutiny by withholding the very contract in question on the ground of confidentiality.
Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan allowed the appeal filed by Bengaluru-based Oil Field Instrumentation India Pvt. Ltd., set aside the arbitral tribunal's order under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and remanded the matter for fresh consideration while directing disclosure of the Government of Bhutan's airborne geophysical survey contract central to the dispute. He held:
“With the deepest respect to the Learned Arbitral Tribunal, for the reasons set out in this judgement, I have to disagree. Exclusivity obligations in joint venture agreements entail precious and vital commercial elements that sophisticated parties negotiate and contract with careful attention to detail. The need for strict construction of a non-compete obligation cannot justify withholding the material relevant to adjudicate whether such obligation has been breached.”
Bombay HC Grants Relief To Adtrack, Says Housing Federation Tried To 'Wriggle Out' Of Hoarding Deal
Case Title : Adtrack Media LLP v. Happy Valley Homes CHS Federation Ltd.
Case Number: Arbitration Petition (L.) No. 7690 of 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 313
The Bombay High Court on Monday held that a housing federation was seeking to "wriggle out of contractual obligations" after changing its mind about the location of a proposed digital advertisement hoarding and granted interim protection permitting the project to proceed pending arbitration.
Justice Sandeep V. Marne held that the federation had changed its mind about the site location of the hoarding and that the contractor would suffer irreparable loss if interim protection was denied.
“A strong prima-facie case is made out by the Petitioner for grant of interim measures before commencement of the arbitral proceedings. The Federation is seeking to wriggle out of contractual obligations because it has changed its mind about the site location of the hoarding. The Agreement has not been terminated by the Federation, who has in fact expressed willingness for installation of the hoarding structure at an alternative site. The Petitioner would suffer irreparable loss if interim measures are not granted since the acts of the Federation have made Petitioner spend considerable amount (Rs.25,00,000/- as claimed in the Petition),” the court held.
Bombay High Court Quashes Awards Against Guarantors Despite IBC Moratorium On Debt
Case Title: Ajeet Madhukar Mulay vs Abhyudaya Co-Operative Bank Limited & Ors
Case Number: COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 843 OF 2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 321
The Bombay High Court on Tuesday held that arbitral awards resulting in enforcement of a debt that has become temporarily unenforceable due to a statutory moratorium run contrary to the fundamental policy of Indian law.
The court consequently quashed two awards obtained by Abhyudaya Co-operative Bank against guarantors of insolvency resolution bound Nirmangold Alloys Pvt. Ltd. and Nirmangold Plasttech Pvt Ltd.
Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh held that the arbitral tribunal continued proceedings and passed awards despite a moratorium operating in respect of the debt. The court concluded that the awards could not be sustained.
Holding that the awards resulted in enforcement of a debt that was temporarily incapable of enforcement because of a statutory bar, the Court observed,
“The impugned Awards resulting in enforcement of debt, which by reason of the statutory interdict is incapable of being enforced albeit temporarily, runs contrary to the fundamental principles of Indian law which recognises enforcement of laws in respect of legally enforceable debts. The impugned Awards disregard the binding judicial pronouncements of this Court as well as the Hon'ble Apex Court, are violative of fundamental policy of Indian law and are liable to be set aside under Section 34(2)(b)(ii) of Arbitration Act.”
Case Title: Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited v. Sapura Fabrication SDN BHD (now known as VTEB Fabrication SDN BHD)
Case Number: Commercial Arbitration Petition No. 720 of 2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 326
The Bombay High Court has reiterated that an arbitral award arising from an international commercial arbitration seated in India cannot be set aside on the ground of patent illegality.
The court held that allegations that an arbitral tribunal ignored evidence or arrived at perverse findings fall within the ground of patent illegality, which is unavailable for challenging such an award. It dismissed Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd.'s challenge to an award in favor of Malaysia-based contractor Sapura Fabrication Sdn. Bhd. (now known as VTEB Fabrication SDN BHD).
Justice Sandeep V. Marne held that the arbitration qualified as an international commercial arbitration because Sapura is a company incorporated in Malaysia, even though the arbitration was seated in India. The Court held that ONGC's challenge was largely founded on allegations of perversity and non-consideration of evidence.
Observing that such objections fall within the grounds of patent illegality, Justice Marne held:
“The ground of perversity is repeatedly pleaded in the Petition and the elements of perversity in the findings recorded by the Arbitral Tribunal are repeatedly sought to be demonstrated on behalf of the Petitioner during the course of submissions. However, the vice of perversity is relatable to the ground of patent illegality under Section 34(2A) of the Arbitration Act, which ground is not available for challenging the Award made in an international commercial arbitration.”
Case Title: Shashisumeet Production Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. Kuresh R. Kushesh @ Dhiren (with connected matters)
Case Number: Notice of Motion No. 665 of 2019 in Commercial Suit No. 621 of 2017; Interim Application No. 625 of 2021 in Commercial Suit No. 21 of 2021
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 320
The Bombay High Court has held that a dispute does not become non-arbitrable merely because one side alleges fraud or claims that it has criminal or public overtones.
Referring a dispute between television production company Shashisumeet Production Pvt. Ltd. and investor Kuresh R. Kushesh to arbitration, the Court said such allegations, by themselves, do not take the matter outside the jurisdiction of an arbitral tribunal.
"Merely on the ground that there are “criminal overtones” or because a party claims that there are “public overtones”, the dispute would not become non-arbitrable. The Agreement having been signed by both, the Plaintiffs as well as the Defendant, and that instrument having an arbitration clause, allother contentions about the evidentiary value of facts in relation to the existence of the bargain in the Agreement squarely fall in the domain of the Arbitral Tribunal.," Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan held.
Case Title : Fimbank P.L.C. vs Mr. Rajeev Suresh Bhatia & Ors
Case Number: COMMERCIAL EXECUTION APPLICATION NO. 55 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 319
The Bombay High Court has rejected an objection by two guarantors of a USD 5 million factoring facility to the maintainability of execution proceedings initiated by Malta-based Fimbank P.L.C. to enforce a Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) Court judgment in India.
Justice Abhay Ahuja held that a penal notice issued by the DIFC Court and a subsequent certificate relating to satisfaction of the judgment fulfilled the requirement of a certificate regarding satisfaction or adjustment of the decree.
The objection was raised by Rajeev Suresh Bhatia and Suresh Tulsidas Bhatia, the Managing Director and Chairman respectively of Bhatia Traders Co. LLC.
The Court held that the DIFC Court's Penal Notice dated October 24, 2023 declaring the judgment “final and executory” and the certificate dated December 9, 2025 certifying it as “conclusive and executable” were sufficient to satisfy Section 44A(2) CPC.
"True that, under Article 7(2) of the Law of the Judicial Authority at Dubai International Financial Centre, Law No. 12 of 2004, the Courts are required to affix the executory formula on the Judgment/Decision, Order or ratified Arbitral Award however, in response to an Application under the provisions of Rule 45.20, a Penal Notice dated 24th October, 2023 certifying that the Judgment under execution is final and executory as required by the provisions of Part 45 of the DIFC Court Rules and the certificate dated 9th December, 2025 entitled “Certificate in relation to satisfaction of Judgment” certifies that the Judgment is “conclusive and executable”.”
Bombay High Court Upholds Award In Paharpur–Siemens Dispute, Reaffirms Limited Scope Of Section 34
Case Title: Paharpur Cooling Towers Ltd. v. Siemens Ltd.
Case Number: Commercial Arbitration Petition No. 996 of 2019
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 316
On 8 June, the Bombay High Court reiterated that under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, courts cannot reappreciate evidence or substitute a plausible view taken by an arbitral tribunal merely because another interpretation of the contract or evidence is possible.
Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan dismissed the petition filed by Paharpur Cooling Towers Ltd. and upheld the arbitral award in favour of Siemens Ltd. in its entirety. He held:
"In my opinion, this analysis is a reasonable and commercially commonsensical interpretation of a commercial contract. It would not be open for this Court to substitute one plausible view taken by the Learned Arbitral Tribunal with another plausible view that is canvassed as being more acceptable and more logical."
Case Title: Tata Capital Financial Services Ltd. v. Priyanka Communications (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Case Number: Interim Application No. 434 of 2025 in Commercial Summary Suit No. 87 of 2022
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 315
On 8 June, the Bombay High Court held that Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 must be construed liberally to facilitate arbitral reference and cannot be defeated by procedural technicalities such as insisting on a separate application for referral.
Justice Abhay Ahuja referred Tata Capital Financial Services Ltd.'s Rs.36.10 crore loan recovery dispute with Priyanka Communications (India) Pvt. Ltd. and its guarantors to arbitration under Clause 21 of the Working Capital Demand Loan Agreement dated 2 August 2018. He observed:
“It is indeed true that Section 8 of the Arbitration Act is mandatory but it also cannot be ignored that Section 5 of the said Act clearly brings out the object of the Act viz. that of encouraging resolution of disputes expeditiously and where there is an arbitration agreement, Section 8 has to be construed keeping the legislative intent in mind. In my view, the legislative intent requires a Court to interpret Section 8 widely and not in a restrictive fashion, as would be the case if it were to be held that a separate Interim Application ought to have been filed making the same plea as made before this Court by the learned Senior Counsel on 11th September 2025 and in the written submissions filed in this Court, as the same would take away or rather delay reference of disputes to be adjudicated by the agreed mode of arbitration."
Case Title : Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited v. Swiber Offshore Construction Pte. Limited
Case Number : Commercial Arbitration Petition (L) No. 17832 of 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 327
The Bombay High Court recently reiterated that interim protection in arbitration matters is not meant to extend rights beyond what parties have agreed between themselves.
The court made the observation while refusing Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd.'s request to continue a USD 14.82 million bank guarantee furnished by Swiber Offshore Construction Pte. Ltd. The request came after an arbitral tribunal rejected ONGC's liquidated damages claim and directed return of the security.
A single-judge bench of Justice Amit Borkar held that ONGC had failed to establish the existence of such exceptional and compelling circumstances as would justify post-award interim protection.
The Court observed,"The object of Section 9 is to preserve existing securities so that the subject matter of the dispute remains protected pending adjudication. It is not intended to extend existing rights beyond limits agreed upon by the parties."
Case Title: Apurvakriti Infrastructure Private Limited vs Tata Projects Limited and Anr
Case Number : COMM. ARBITRATION APPLICATION NO. 23 OF 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 341
On 17 June, the Bombay High Court held that an arbitration clause contained in a principal contract cannot be imported into a subcontract unless the subcontract specifically incorporates the arbitration clause itself.
Justice Arun R. Pedneker dismissed a Commercial Arbitration Application filed by Apurvakriti Infrastructure under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act against Tata Projects Ltd, holding that no arbitration agreement existed between the parties in relation to a Rs. 58.27 crore subcontract for ballastless track work in the Navi Mumbai Metro Rail Project. He held:
“Considering the judgements as noted above in M. R. Engineers And Contractors Private Limited (supra), NBCC (India) Limited (supra) and Hirani Developers (supra) and Inox Wind Limited (supra) and also considering the tender document, this Court holds that Clause 31 of the General Conditions of Contract signed between the Respondent No.1 and CIDCO is not incorporated in the Tender-cum-Work Order dated 2 March, 2015 executed between the Respondent No.1 and the Applicant. In absence of arbitration agreement between the parties, it would not be possible for this Court to refer the disputes to arbitration.”
Case Title: Eicher Motors Limited v Ashutosh Ranjit Majumdar
Case Number: COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION PETITION (L) NO. 21283 OF 202
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 347
The Bombay High Court on 8 June held that an arbitral award becomes patently illegal when the tribunal relies on material not disclosed to a party or taken from external sources without granting an opportunity to respond.
Justice Sharmila U Deshmukh while hearing a petition filed by Eicher Motors Ltd. (Eicher), set aside an award granting interest and costs in favour of Ashutosh Ranjit Majumdar after finding that the tribunal relied on undisclosed Yahoo Finance data while computing compensation. The Bench held:
“In the present case, after conclusion of hearing, the material was sourced by the Arbitral Tribunal itself without supplying a copy to the Petitioner and without granting any opportunity to the Petitioner. The computation based on such document would amount to patent illegality.”
Case Title : M/s Traveira Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd. v M/s Toto Toya Spin Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number: Arbitration Petition No. 21 of 2023
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 346
The Bombay High Court on 8 June held that an arbitral award passed by an arbitrator unilaterally appointed under an association's bye-laws, despite the absence of an arbitration agreement and where one party was not a member of the association, is contrary to Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the public policy of India.
Justice Gauri Godse allowed a petition filed by Traviera Silk Mills and set aside an arbitral award passed in favour of Toto Toya Spin under the Bombay Yarn Merchants Association and Exchange Limited bye-laws. She observed:
“Hence, in view of these facts, there is substance in the arguments raised on behalf of the petitioners that the impugned award is based on a unilateral constitution of the arbitral tribunal by the association by relying on the byelaws of the association to which the petitioners are admittedly not members. Hence, in absence of any arbitration agreement between the petitioners and respondent no.1 and in the absence of a valid constitution of the arbitral tribunal, the impugned award would not be sustainable as it is against the public policy of India.”
Dissenting Flat Owners Cannot Stall Redevelopment Project By Withholding Consent: Bombay High Court
Case Title : Wadhwa Estates and Developers (India) Private Limited v. Moon Craft Apartments Co-operative Housing Society Limited & Ors.
Case Number: Commercial Arbitration Petition (L) No. 13424 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 345
On 18 June, the Bombay High Court held that dissenting members of a co-operative housing society cannot stall an approved redevelopment project by refusing to execute consent declarations required under a redevelopment agreement, observing that the collective will of the society, and not the wishes of individual members, governs such projects.
Justice Amit Borkar granted interim relief to Wadhwa Estates and Developers (India) Pvt. Ltd. and directed the dissenting members of Moon Craft Apartments Co-operative Housing Society to furnish the requisite declarations, while also restrained them from creating third-party rights in their flats but declined to direct them to vacate the premises immediately or appoint a receiver to take possession. He held:
“Therefore, redevelopment cannot proceed on the basis of consent of every individual member in every case. The law recognises the reality that collective decisions must govern such matters. Otherwise, even a single member may prevent implementation of a project desired by the overwhelming majority."
Stock Exchange Bye-Laws Cannot Compel Arbitration Of Fraud Disputes: Bombay High Court
Case Title: ABB India Limited Versus Sunil Hariram Jaisingh And Ors
Case Number: COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION PETITION (L) NO. 32954 OF 2024
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 328
The Bombay High Court on 9 June held that although stock exchange bye-laws carry statutory force, they cannot compel arbitration of every shareholder dispute, particularly where serious allegations of fraud arise and the dispute falls outside the scope of arbitrability.
Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan allowed the challenge and quashed an arbitral award dated 6 August 2024, which had directed ABB India Ltd to restore 1,550 ABB shares and 310 Hitachi Energy India shares to shareholder Sunil Hariram Jaisingh or alternatively pay compensation equivalent to their market value. The Bench observed:
“The bye-laws of a stock exchange constitute subordinate law and are tabled in Parliament, having the force of statutory provisions. While such disputes of the nature set out in the aforesaid clause are made subject to arbitration, the law on arbitrability of disputes cannot be given a go-by. Indeed, every grievance raised by a shareholder cannot be said to be brought within the ambit of arbitration – for example, a grievance about accounting fraud by a listed company, made by a shareholder cannot be arbitrable. A shareholder who contends that a decision by the board of a listed company was taken negligently and that has resulted in losses for which damages are claimed, could arguably not be the intended beneficiary of the Master Circular.”
Arbitral Tribunals Must Respect Contract Terms While Ensuring Business Efficacy: Bombay High Court
Case Title : Public Works Department Got of Maharashtra National Highways Versus Khare And Tarkunde Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number: ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 262 OF 2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 330
The Bombay High Court on 12 June held that Section 28(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 does not permit arbitral tribunals to ignore contractual terms but requires them to interpret the contract in a manner that gives effect to business efficacy.
A Bench of Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan partly allowed petitions filed by the Maharashtra Public Works Department (PWD) and upheld the arbitral award dated 14 April 2023 in favour of Khare and Tarkunde Infrastructure Pvt Ltd (KTIPL) on damages, while setting aside the award of 18% compound interest. He held:
“I must hasten to add that Section 28(3) of the Act is not a license to ignore the terms of the contract at all, but it is a statutory recognition that when parties invest their trust in an Arbitral Tribunal to adjudicate their disputes, the Arbitral Tribunal would take into account the terms of the contract as opposed to the earlier position of adjudicating only “in accordance with” the contract. It is in extraordinary situations such as the matter at hand, that it is arguable that the scheme of the fine balance of reciprocal promises that the parties wove together may be required to be given business efficacy where it otherwise presents completely irrational and absurd consequences.”
Financial Hardship Alone Cannot Justify Payment Of Disputed Claim: Bombay High Court
Case Title : The Capturing Factory ( Division of Israni Entertainment India Limited V/s. Ullu Digital Limited & Another
Case Number: COMM ARBITRATION PETITION (L) NO.9509 OF 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 333
The Bombay High Court on Tuesday held that financial hardship by itself cannot justify directing payment of a disputed claim at an interim stage.
Refusing to order Ullu Digital Ltd. to secure or deposit about ₹2.58 crore claimed by the producer of the web series 'KINK 2', the Court observed that treating financial pressure as a sufficient reason for payment would blur the distinction between admitted and contested claims.
Justice Amit Borkar held that the material on record did not warrant interim relief. The Court also declined to restrain Ullu from continuing to stream and exploit KINK 2, observing that the parties would have to pursue their remedies before an arbitral tribunal.
“Merely because a party is facing financial pressure does not automatically mean that every disputed claim must immediately be treated as payable. If financial difficulty were accepted as sufficient reason for directing payment, the distinction between an admitted claim and a disputed claim would disappear. Courts dealing with applications at an interim stage are required to proceed on settled legal principles. Therefore, while the hardship alleged by the petitioner may be a relevant circumstance, it cannot by itself provide a sufficient basis for granting the relief sought.”, the court observed
Case Title : Arch Construction Co. Versus Union of India
Case Number : EXECUTION APPLICATION (L) NO. 39969 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 348
The Bombay High Court has held that, for the purpose of excluding a period while computing limitation, it is not necessary that the limitation period should have commenced or expired during the period sought to be excluded.
Observing that "the period excluded has to be simply excluded", the court ruled that the period excluded by the Supreme Court during the COVID-19 pandemic must be left out while calculating the limitation for the execution of an arbitral award.
Justice Abhay Ahuja made the observation while allowing an execution application filed by Arch Construction Co against the Union of India and directing the Registry to waive its objection on limitation and register the proceedings.
“Accordingly, under the Scheme of the Limitation Act for a period to be excluded for computation of limitation, it is not necessary that the period of limitation should have commenced or expired during the said period. The period excluded has to be simply excluded.It is only when fresh limitation has to commence for extending the limitation in situation such as acknowledgment of liability or payment of debt, that the said acts should have occurred before the expiry of the prescribed period of limitation and that there is no such requirement for excluding the period of limitation”, it ruled.
Case Title: Mahaguj Collieries Ltd. Versus Adani Enterprises Ltd.
Case Number :COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 483 OF 2018
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 356
The Bombay High Court on Thursday set aside an arbitral award directing Mahaguj Collieries Ltd to pay about ₹32.79 crore to Adani Enterprises Ltd towards land acquisition expenses incurred for the Machhakata coal block in Odisha.
The court held that the dispute could not have been decided through a summary award.
Observing that the tribunal had failed to analyse the contractual provisions or the requirements of the Contract Act before directing payment, the court held:
"Remarkably, the Impugned Award contains no analysis of Sections 56 and 65 of the Contract Act – they are summarily invoked without applying the ingredients of the provisions to the facts of the case. Equally, there is no analysis of the provisions of the CMSA to analyse and indicate the nature of the agreement between the parties, as to how they had contracted to share the risk apportionment between them in the event of the CMSA getting terminated or becoming void."
Gauhati High Court
Sub-Contract Dispute Clause Bars Import Of Arbitration Clause From Principal Contract: Gauhati HC
Case Title : Yumiko Global Infra Tech Pvt. Ltd. v. PRL Gepong JV
Case Number : Arb.P./1/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(GAU) 16
The Gauhati High Court on 3 June held that a sub-contract that contains its own specific dispute resolution clause cannot import the arbitration clause from the principal contract, even if it describes the principal contract as “part and parcel” of the sub-contract.
The Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Medhi dismissed a petition filed by Yumiko Global Infra Tech Private Limited (Yumiko) against PRL-Gepong JV (PRL) under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking appointment of an arbitrator in a contractual dispute arising from a sub-contract arrangement. He observed:
“As already mentioned above, the arbitration Clause contained in Clause 29 of the original agreement cannot have any application to the sub-contract, inasmuch as the sub-contract itself contains a specific clause for resolution of disputes namely Clause 5, which has been referred to hereinabove.”
Case Title: Techno Steel and Craft Industries & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number: Arb.P./16/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(GAU) 17
The Gauhati High Court has held that Noida was the juridical seat of arbitration in a dispute between Techno Steel and Craft Industries and the Inland Waterways Authority of India (IWAI), and therefore declined to appoint an arbitrator for want of territorial jurisdiction.
Justice Soumitra Saikia held that the parties had effectively agreed to Noida as the arbitral seat under the contract.
The court observed, “This Court will have to hold that in terms of the agreement, the parties have decided to agree that the 'arbitral seat' will be at 'Noida' in terms of Section 20(1),”
“Merely because of the use of the term 'venue' would not be sufficient to indicate that the 'arbitral seat' between the parties has not been fixed as decided at 'Noida' inasmuch as there are no contrary indications upon a plain reading of the agreement including the arbitration clause that the 'venue' is merely a 'place' or one of such place where arbitration proceeding will be conducted and therefore, not the 'juridical seat' of arbitration.”, It added.
Kerala High Court
Disputes On Corporate Restructuring Must Be Decided by NCLT, Not Arbitrator: Kerala High Court
Case Title : Purushothaman Thitta v. Pothan Rajan and Anr
Case Number: OP(C) No. 2308 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(KER) 82
On 1 June 2026, the Kerala High Court held that disputes involving corporate restructuring and division of company assets fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) and are non-arbitrable.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Easwaran S allowed the petition challenging an arbitral ruling that had rejected a jurisdictional objection under Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. He observed:
“Albeit, this Courts finds that the dispute before the arbitrator qua the companies is essentially an intra- company dispute. Pertinently, the company is not a signatory to the MOU, whereas it is between two brothers. Moreover, the presences of a specialized statutory form like National Company Tribunal which is given exclusive power to adjudicate on the dispute touching upon the structure of the company and the rights of a minority shareholder, is a clear indication that the subject matter of the dispute is non- arbitrable.”
Case Title: Hashim v Union of India and Ors.
Case Number: WP(C) 17334/ 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(KER) 103
The Kerala High Court has recently stayed an order of the Ernakulam District Collector and directed that arbitration proceedings concerning compensation for land acquired for the widening of National Highway 66 remain in abeyance.
The court found that the landowner had made out a strong prima facie case in challenging the Collector's continuation as arbitrator in the dispute.
Justice C. Jayachandran passed the interim order while considering a writ petition filed by a landowner whose compensation claim had been referred to arbitration after the acquisition of property for the National Highway project.
“Inasmuch as the petitioner has got a strong prima facie case, coupled with the principles of balance of convenience, this Court is of the opinion that Ext.P4 Order is liable to be stayed,” the Court held.
Case Title : Ambica Praveesh v. BMH Care Hospital Ltd
Case Number : AR No. 12 of 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(KER) 102
The Kerala High Court on Friday observed that a presiding arbitrator has no noteworthy superior role over the other members of an arbitral tribunal except in matters of procedure where authorised by the parties or the tribunal.
Justice S. Manu observed, “It is clear from the arbitration clause that the third arbitrator nominated by the two arbitrators chosen by the parties shall preside the tribunal. The learned counsel for the petitioner is correct in contending that the presiding arbitrator has no noteworthy superior role compared to the other arbitrators except in the matter of deciding the questions of procedure, provided he is authorized by the parties or all the members of the tribunal in that regard.”
Allahabad High Court
Arbitral Seat Cannot Be Shifted Merely Due To Convenience Venue: Allahabad High Court
Case Title: Bb Coachtech India Private Limited v. The Presiding Officer, Commercial Court and another
Case Number: MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 6463 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (ALL) 49
The Allahabad High Court on 27 May held that the jurisdictional seat of arbitration cannot be altered merely because arbitral proceedings were conducted at another venue for convenience, once the seat has been contractually designated.
Justice Piyush Agrawal allowed the petition by Bb Coachtech India Private Limited and set aside the order of the Commercial Court, Kanpur, remanding the matter for fresh consideration. He observed:
“the hearing of the arbitration may have been taken place at Prayagraj, a different venue & seat from Kanpur but at the best, it can be said to be convenient place for the parties. In other words, the Commercial Court ought to have appreciated that Kanpur Nagar was consciously designated as the seat of arbitration. Once such a designation was made, the legal consequence that inexorably follows is that courts at Kanpur alone would have jurisdiction over the arbitral proceeding. The mere fact that arbitral tribunal for reasons of convenience, conducted proceeding at Prayagraj, it does not and cannot, alter the jurisdictional seat of arbitration of Kanpur Nagar.”
Section 11 Arbitration Orders Not Reviewable, Article 215 Powers Limited: Allahabad High Court
Case Title :Trans Lighting Ltd. v Madhyanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam
Case Number: CIVIL MISC. ARBITRATION APPLICATION No. - 91 of 2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (ALL) 47
On 14 May, the Allahabad High Court held that it cannot review an order passed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, while exercising its statutory jurisdiction. However, as a Court of Record, it may invoke its inherent powers under Article 215 of the Constitution to correct the record or remedy a grave error that may otherwise result in a failure of justice.
A Bench of Justice Jaspreet Singh dismissed an application seeking recall of an earlier order constituting a three-member arbitral tribunal despite a contractual stipulation providing for a sole arbitrator, holding that the case did not meet the high threshold required for exercise of the Court's inherent powers.
“It may be correct to say that the High Court while exercising its powers under Section 11 of the Act of 1996 may not review its orders but the inherent powers invested in the High Court or the Supreme Court by virtue of being a Court of Record can be invoked to correct the record or undo a serious error which if remained unaddressed, may occasion failure of justice.”
Case Title: Indian Oil Corporation Limited v M/s Kumar Filing Station
Case Number : Appeal under Section 37 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 – 41 of 2023
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (ALL) 46
The Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court on 15 May held that an arbitral tribunal cannot restore a dealership agreement that either party can terminate by notice. Such a contract is determinable in nature and Section 14 of the Specific Relief Act bars its specific enforcement.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Jaspreet Singh allowed Indian Oil Corporation Limited's (IOCL) appeal, set aside the arbitral award directing restoration of the dealership, and quashed the Commercial Court's order that had upheld the award. The judges held:
“In view of the above fact situation, the award passed by the Arbitral Tribunal as upheld by the Commercial Court is ex-facie and patently illegal being against the provisions of the Specific Relief Act as well as the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.”
Himachal Pradesh High Court
Consent Under Section 29A(3) Can Be Inferred From Conduct Of Parties: Himachal Pradesh High Court
Case Title: Meenakshi v NHAI
Case Number :Arb. Appeal 3 and 7 of 2022
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(HP)23
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that Section 29A(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 does not require parties to give written consent for extending the time limit to make an arbitral award. Consent may be inferred from the conduct of the parties.
A Bench of Justice Virender Singh allowed the appeals filed by landowners Meenakshi and Chaman Lal, set aside the District Judge's order annulling the arbitral award, and remanded the matter for consideration of the Section 34 challenge on merits. The judges held:
“The learned District Judge, in the judgment impugned herein, has adopted a hyper-technical approach while holding that 'consent', as used by the Legislature, in its wisdom, in Section 29A(3) of the Act has to be express and after being aware of the statutory provision.”
Case Title : Mohan Singh (deceased) through LRs. v. NHAI & Another
Case Number : CMPMO No. 724 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(HP)24
On 3 June, the Himachal Pradesh High Court held that when a statute requires an authority or arbitrator to perform an act within a prescribed time, the obligation lies on that authority to comply with the statutory timeline and complete the task accordingly.
A Single Bench of Justice Romesh Verma, while hearing Mohan Singh (deceased) through legal representatives v. National Highways Authority of India and others, directed the Divisional Commissioner-cum-Arbitrator, Shimla, to conclude the arbitration proceedings and pass the award on or before 4 December 2026. He observed:
“This Court is of the view that when a statute envisages an authority, be it an Arbitrator, to do a particular act in a particular manner and in a prescribed time schedule, then the onus is upon the said authority/Arbitrator to perform the task entrusted to it within the time schedule prescribed in the statute.”
Chhattisgarh High Court
Commercial Court Cannot Hear Challenge To Railways Land Acquisition Award: Chhattisgarh High Court
Case Title: Sagarmal Agarwal v Deputy Chief Engineer, South Eastern Central Railway Bilaspur
Case Number : ARBA No. 28 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (CHH) 14
On 14 May, the Chhattisgarh High Court held that disputes arising from land acquisition proceedings under the Railways Act do not fall within the definition of a “commercial dispute” under Section 2(1)(c) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, and therefore cannot be adjudicated by a Commercial Court.
A Division Bench of Justices Parth Prateem Sahu and Sachin Singh Rajput allowed an appeal filed by Sagarmal Agrawal, set aside an order of the Commercial Court, Bilaspur, holding that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain a challenge to an arbitral award arising out of land acquisition proceedings. The judges held:
“Since the 2nd District Judge (Commercial Court), District Judge Level District Bilaspur (C.G.) is having no jurisdiction to entertain the application under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 arising out of the land acquisition proceedings being not covered under commercial dispute as defined under Section 2 (c) of the Act of 2015, the Commercial Court erred in entertaining the proceeding filed by the appellant before it.”
BOCW Cess Dispute Not Arbitrable, Must Be Decided Under Statutory Mechanism: Chhattisgarh High Court
Case Title : S K Samanta Co. (P) Ltd. v. South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd.
Case Number : ARBR 47 and 48 of 2024 and ARBR 4 and 6 of 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (CHH) 15
The Chhattisgarh High Court on 13 May, refused to appoint an arbitrator in a dispute between SK Samanta and Co. (P) Ltd. and South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. (SECL), holding that issues relating to statutory cess under the Building and Other Construction Workers' Welfare Cess Act, 1996 (BOCW Cess Act) are non-arbitrable.
Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha held that the dispute arose from statutory levy and not a purely contractual arrangement, and therefore did not fall within the scope of arbitration under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. He held:
“The principal issue raised by the applicant is with regard to the applicability or otherwise of the BOCW Act and the consequential liability towards deduction of cess. Such determination necessarily involves examination of statutory provisions, the scope of exclusion contained in Section 2(1)(d) of the BOCW Act, and the authority of the State machinery under the enactment… In the considered opinion of this Court, the dispute in question falls within the domain of the statutory framework governing levy and collection of cess and cannot be said to be a pure contractual dispute amenable to arbitration.”
Rajasthan High Court
Case Title: Union of India v V.S. Saini
Case Number: S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2109/2007, S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2110/2007
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(RAJ) 27
The Rajasthan High Court has held that where a contract contains an ambiguous term and the arbitrator adopts a plausible interpretation of that term, such interpretation does not amount to misconduct under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act, 1940.
Justice Sandeep Shah upheld an arbitral award passed nearly two decades ago against the Union of India (UOI) in a dispute arising from fencing work along the Indo-Pak border and affirmed the arbitral award as well as the order of the District Judge, Sri Ganganagar refusing to set it aside. He held:
“When the terms of the contract are capable of more than one interpretation and the learned Arbitrator has adopted one of the possible and plausible interpretations, the same by itself cannot be a ground for interference with the award in question under Section 30 of the Act of 1940.”
Punjab & Haryana High Court
Case Title: Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited v. M/s Ganesh Rice Mills and connected matters
Case Number: CR-5847-2025 (O&M) and connected matters
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (PNH) 29
On 29 May, the Punjab and Haryana High Court held that executing courts cannot retrospectively apply the post-2015 neutrality regime under Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to refuse enforcement of arbitral awards rendered under the law prevailing at the time of the arbitrator's appointment.
A Bench of Justice Jasgurpreet Singh Puri allowed the revision petitions, set aside seven executing court orders, and directed continuation of execution proceedings. It observed:
“Once the award has been passed by an Arbitrator who was eligible to pass the same in view of the law as it stood at the time of his appointment, it is well settled that the learned Executing Court at the time of execution of such an award cannot go behind the same to apply the provisions of the 2015 Amendment Act retrospectively and is bound to execute it as it is.”
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Arbitral Mandate Can Be Extended After Expiry; No Limitation Prescribed: Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case Title: Gali Radha Bhagya Lakshmi v. Sree Constructions & Anr.
Case Number: Civil Revision Petition No. 84 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(APH) 42
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has recently reiterated that applications seeking extension of an arbitral tribunal's mandate can be filed even after expiry of the prescribed period and that courts must adopt a liberal approach while considering whether sufficient cause exists for granting such extensions.
Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Rohan Builders (India) Private Limited v. Berger Paints India Limited and its own earlier ruling in Chidepudi Bhanu Srivastava v. Kancharla Subrahmanyam, a Division Bench of Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Balaji Medamalli held:
"it is settled position in law that the application for extension of time for Arbitral Mandate under Section 29A of the Act, 1996 can be filed before the expiry of the period of mandate and also thereafter and the court has to record sufficient reasons for extension of the mandate as to why Arbitral Award could not be made within the mandated period. It is also settled that 'sufficient cause' has to be construed liberally so as to enable to give the mandate."
Jharkhand High Court
Case Title: Hindustan Dorr-Oliver Limited vs Uranium Corporation of India Limited
Case Number: Arbitration Application No. 3 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (JHAR) 11
The Jharkhand High Court on 8 May held that while exercising jurisdiction under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, a referral court is required to undertake only a prima facie examination of the existence of an arbitration agreement and cannot enter into disputed questions relating to limitation, maintainability or the effect of insolvency proceedings.
Chief Justice M.S. Sonak appointed former Andhra Pradesh High Court Judge Justice C. Praveen Kumar as the sole arbitrator to adjudicate disputes between Hindustan Dorr-Oliver Ltd. (HDOL) and Uranium Corporation of India Ltd. (UCIL) arising out of a contract dated 20 March 2009, while leaving all objections raised by UCIL open for consideration by the Arbitral Tribunal. The Bench observed:
“The Hon'ble Supreme Court pointed out that Section 11(6-A) uses the expression "examination of the existence of an arbitration agreement". The purport of using the word "examination" connotes that the legislature intends that the Referral Court has to inspect or scrutinise the dealings between the parties for the existence of an arbitration agreement. Moreover, the expression "examination" does not connote or imply a laborious or contested inquiry.”