LiveLawBiz Arbitration Cases Weekly Digest: August 10 - August 16, 2026
NOMINAL INDEX
Central Depository Services (India) Limited v. Daksha Narendra Bhavsar & Anr., 2026 LLBiz SC 268
Justice K.V. Viswanathan and Justice Alok Aradhe, 2026 LLBiz SC 266
Omaxe Ltd. v. Mr. Joginder Singh Nijjar & Anr., 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 834
Union of India, Through Secretary, Department of Telecommunications, Ministry of Communications, Govt. of India v. Sterlite Technologies Limited, 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 817
P. Perumal Transports v. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited & Connected Matters, 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 460
Sandeep Dixit v. Rekha Dixit & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 450
Waterfield Advisors Private Limited vs Sridhar Kurpad, 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 449
Shiv Keshrimal Agrawa vs Farma Hub Overseas Private Limited & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 448
Satyavan Vishnu Agate, Sole Proprietor of M/s Vision Enterprises v. Airports Authority of India & Connected Matters, 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 453
Osterreichischer Lloyd Seereederei v. Victore Ships Private Limited, 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 445
Idieal Multi Media Network Private Limited vs. CMYK Printech Limited, 2026 LLBiz HC (MP) 59
Vedanta Limited v. Masyc Projects Pvt. Ltd., 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 226
Sri Kashinath Bhattacharjee v. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) & Anr., 2026 LLBiz HC (TRI) 6
General Manager/South East Central Railway & Anr. v. ARSS SIP (JV) & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC (CHH) 22
The Bihar State Warehousing Corporation & Anr. v. M/s Pushpheera Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC(PAT) 21
Kambhampati Venkata Rama Krishna Rao v. M/s Amarkrishna Constructions and Developers, 2026 LLBiz HC(TEL) 58
SRK Metals and Plastics (Pvt.) Ltd. v. State of Assam and Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC(GAU) 26
The Kolkata Municipal Corporation v. Bengal Shelter Housing Development Ltd., 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 196
Supreme Court
Supreme Court Stays Bombay High Court Order Directing CDSL To Pay ₹86.02 Lakh To Investor
Case Title : Central Depository Services (India) Limited v. Daksha Narendra Bhavsar & Anr.
Case Number : SLP (C) No. 26300/2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz SC 268
On 7 August, the Supreme Court stayed the operation of a Bombay High Court order that had upheld an arbitral award directing Central Depository Services (India) Limited (CDSL) to pay Rs. 86.02 lakh with interest to investor Daksha Narendra Bhavsar for losses arising from the transfer and pledge of her demat shares by BRH Wealth Kreators Limited.
A Division Bench comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran issued notice on CDSL's Special Leave Petition, returnable on 10 September 2026. The Court observed that it needed “to closely look into the matter,” adding that “the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court shall remain stayed from its operation.”
Supreme Court Upholds Interim Relief To Unsuccessful Arbitration Party In 'Rare, Compelling' Case
Case Title : Justice K.V. Viswanathan and Justice Alok Aradhe
Case Number : Civil Appeal No. 5819 of 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz SC 266
The Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld interim relief granted to an unsuccessful party in arbitration, finding that it had met the higher threshold required for post-award relief under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
A bench of Justice K.V. Viswanathan and Justice Alok Aradhe upheld a Delhi High Court order directing National Projects Construction Corporation Ltd. (NPCC) to deposit ₹3.5 crore, which it had realised by invoking bank guarantees furnished by Ishvakoo (India) Pvt. Ltd.
The bench noted that the maintainability of a Section 9 application by an unsuccessful party after an arbitral award was already settled. It relied on its recent judgment in Home Care Retail Marts Pvt. Ltd. v. Haresh N. Sanghavi, where the court held that the distinction between a winning and losing party does not by itself determine access to Section 9 relief.
HIGH COURTS
Delhi High Court
Delhi High Court Orders Omaxe To Refund ₹3.35 Crore After Developer Stopped Assured Returns
Case Title : Omaxe Ltd. v. Mr. Joginder Singh Nijjar & Anr.
Case Number : FAO(OS) (COMM) 236/2023 & CM APPL. 55402/2023
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 834
The Delhi High Court has upheld an arbitral award directing Omaxe Ltd. to refund ₹3.35 crore to two co-allottees of a commercial unit in Omaxe Novelty Mall at Lawrence Road, Amritsar.
A Division Bench of Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora also upheld the interest awarded by the tribunal and ₹25 lakh in costs. It further imposed ₹2 lakh in costs on Omaxe, payable equally to the two co-allottees within two weeks.
The court ruled that Omaxe could not compel the co-allottees to continue with the allotment after it had stopped paying the assured monthly returns. “Having itself discontinued payment of the assured returns, the Appellant forfeited any right to compel the Respondents to continue with the allotment and accept possession,” the court observed.
Delhi High Court Upholds Award Setting Aside ₹8.55 Crore DoT Demand Against Sterlite Technologies
Case Title : Union of India, Through Secretary, Department of Telecommunications, Ministry of Communications, Govt. of India v. Sterlite Technologies Limited
Case Number : O.M.P. (COMM) 395/2023
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 817
The Delhi High Court has upheld an arbitral award in favour of Sterlite Technologies Limited, rejecting the Union government's challenge to an award that had set aside a ₹8.55 crore demand raised by the Department of Telecommunications (DoT).
Justice Avneesh Jhingan ruled that the arbitrator's finding that Sterlite provided only passive telecom infrastructure, rather than unlicensed end-to-end bandwidth services.
This, according to the court, was a plausible view that did not warrant interference under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
“The view taken by the arbitrator is plausible and suffers from no legal or factual error, much less perversity, and no interference is called for,” the court observed.
Bombay High Court
Bombay High Court Refuses To Restore Terminated LPG Transport Contract Pending Arbitration
Case Title : P. Perumal Transports v. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited & Connected Matters
Case Number : Arbitration Petition (L) Nos. 22666, 22924, 23272, 23312, 23394, 23702 and 23005 of 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 460
The Bombay High Court has refused to order Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (BPCL) and Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOCL) to resume LPG load allotments to tank-truck operators whose transport arrangements were terminated.
The court held that such a direction would effectively revive the terminated contractual relationship while the dispute is pending arbitration.
Justice Amit Borkar observed, “if prayer clause (b) is granted, result would be that contractual relationship which has been terminated would again get restored and Respondent would be required to continue performing contract during pendency of arbitration.”
Case Title : Sandeep Dixit v. Rekha Dixit & Ors.
Case Number : Commercial Arbitration Petition (L) No. 33371 of 2024
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 450
The Bombay High Court has held that an arbitrator cannot disregard the terms of the contract under which a dispute was referred to arbitration and treat WhatsApp exchanges as a separate concluded agreement when that was never the pleaded case.
Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh partly set aside an arbitral award in a family partnership dispute involving a husband, his wife, and other family members.
The court quashed the direction to pay 9% annual interest on a ₹5 crore loan, which the arbitrator had based on WhatsApp exchanges, while leaving the principal amount and the wife's retirement from the firm undisturbed.
“By considering the whatsapp message as concluded contract the Learned Arbitrator has foisted a new contract upon the parties, which was not even the pleaded case of the Respondent No 1. The arbitrator is the creature of the contract and was bound to consider the terms of the contract under which the dispute was referred to arbitration. The dispute was referred in context of the partnership agreement and the Learned Arbitrator has categorically held that it has not delved into the question of interpretation of the partnership agreement and amended Clause 23, which it was bound to do. It was not permissible for the Learned Arbitrator to ignore the terms of partnership deed when the reference arose from the partnership deed and create a new contract between the parties,” the court observed.
Case Title Waterfield Advisors Private Limited vs Sridhar Kurpad
Case Number COMM ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 1149 OF 2025
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 449
The Bombay High Court has recently held that a company cannot rely on its own failure to frame an Employee Stock Option Plan (ESOP) to deny an employee equity that was offered as part of his remuneration package.
Justice N.J. Jamadar made the observation while dismissing Waterfield Advisors Private Limited's petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The company had challenged an arbitral award directing it to allot 31,878 equity shares to its former Director (Operations), Sridhar Kurpad. “On first principles, the Petitioner company cannot be permitted to take advantage of its failure to frame employee stock option scheme,” the court ruled.
“To allow the Petitioner to now take advantage of its omission to frame a scheme, when it had made an offer of equity as a part of its remuneration package to the employees would amount to putting a premium on its own wrong.”
Case Title : Shiv Keshrimal Agrawa vs Farma Hub Overseas Private Limited & Ors
Case Number : COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION PETITION (L) NO.14011 OF 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 448
The Bombay High Court has recently held that the mere filing of a company petition before the National Company Law Tribunal does not bar a shareholder from seeking interim relief under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
This applies where the relief sought concerns rights arising from a Shareholders' Agreement containing an arbitration clause.
Justice Amit Borkar, while partly allowing a petition filed by a 33% shareholder and Director of Farma Hub Overseas Pvt Ltd, rejected the objection based on the pending NCLT proceedings.
The court observed, “In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any merit in the preliminary objection raised by the Respondents that mere filing of Company Petition before the National Company Law Tribunal creates a bar against the present proceedings under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The objection, therefore, deserves to be rejected.”
Case Title : Satyavan Vishnu Agate, Sole Proprietor of M/s Vision Enterprises v. Airports Authority of India & Connected Matters
Case Number : Commercial Arbitration Petition No. 219 of 2025 with connected Commercial Arbitration Petition (L) Nos. 10397, 5861, 5932 and 6073 of 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 453
The Bombay High Court has refused to allow three EV charging station licence holders to restart their projects on Airports Authority of India (AAI) land in Mumbai, holding that such relief could effectively restore performance under license agreements that AAI had sought to terminate.
Justice Amit Borkar observed that the interim reliefs sought under the Arbitration Act were mandatory in nature to a considerable extent and went beyond merely preserving the existing position.
“Petitioners do not merely seek preservation of existing position. They seek permission to restart work. They seek continuation of construction activities. They seek restoration of performance. Grant of such relief would change existing position instead of merely preserving it,” the court observed.
Case Title : Osterreichischer Lloyd Seereederei v. Victore Ships Private Limited
Case Number: Commercial Arbitration Petition No. 403 of 2025
Citation 2026 : LLBiz HC (BOM) 445
The Bombay High Court on 5 August held that a party cannot claim it was unable to present its case when it voluntarily chose not to participate in arbitration, and allowed enforcement of a USD 200,733.01 foreign arbitral award, along with interest and costs, in favour of Osterreichischer Llyod Seereederei against Victore Ships Private Limited.
A Bench of Justice Arif S. Doctor held:
“Section 48(1)(b) is intended to protect a party who, for reasons beyond its control, was genuinely unable to present its case before the arbitral Tribunal. It is not meant to be used as a shield to resist enforcement by a party who has chosen not to appear before a Tribunal despite ample opportunity. In the present case, it is undisputed that the Respondent was duly served with notices of the arbitral proceedings and was repeatedly afforded opportunities to enter an appearance and file its Statement of Defence. The Respondent nevertheless chose not to do so. Such voluntary abstention can by no stretch of imagination be characterised as an inability to present one's case within the meaning of Section 48(1)(b). To accept such a contention would really be doing violence to the plain language of the provision.”
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Two Arbitration Places Can Both Be Seats If Parties Do Not Choose One: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Case Title: Idieal Multi Media Network Private Limited vs. CMYK Printech Limited
Case Number :Arbitration Case No. 32 of 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (MP) 59
The Madhya Pradesh High Court on 16 July held that where an arbitration agreement specifies two alternative places as the “place of arbitration” and the parties do not subsequently choose one, both places can operate as juridical seats of arbitration.
Justice Vivek Jain accordingly referred the dispute between Idieal Multi Media Network Private Limited and newspaper publisher CMYK Printech Limited to arbitration and appointed former Calcutta High Court Chief Justice Sujoy Paul as the sole arbitrator. He observed:
“In the present case, so far as the dual places of arbitration are concerned, the MOU does indicate that courts at Bhopal or New Delhi shall have the jurisdiction and the place shall be Delhi or Bhopal, or as decided by the parties. No different decision has been taken by the parties and therefore, the position remains that now the seat of arbitration is Delhi or Bhopal and the High Courts exercising jurisdiction over Delhi as well as over Madhya Pradesh would therefore have jurisdiction to entertain this application under Section 11(6).”
Madras High Court
Case Title : Vedanta Limited v. Masyc Projects Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : OSA No. 315 of 2019
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 226
The Madras High Court on 31 July partly allowed Vedanta Limited's appeal arising from its dispute over the design, manufacture, supply and commissioning of a conveyor system for a copper concentrate warehouse at Tuticorin, while substantially upholding the arbitral award in favour of Masyc Projects Pvt. Ltd.
A Division Bench of Justices P. Velmurugan and K. Govindarajan Thilakavadi held that interest awarded for the pre-arbitration and pendente lite periods must be commensurate with the prevailing rate of interest and economic conditions during the relevant period, and reduced the rate in the present case from 14% to 9% per annum. The judges held:
“The learned Single Judge considering the prime lending / base rate of the State Bank of India form 27.06.2009 to date of Award (8.3.2016) as a reasonable bench mark for a business commercial transaction revised the rate of interest from 24% per annum to 14% per annum during the pre reference period and the pendente lite period. The learned Single Judge ought to have considered that the interest must commensurate with the prevalent rate of interest for the relevant period. No reason was stated by the learned Single Judge that the interest rate at 14% reflects the prevailing economic conditions. Admittedly the legal notice was issued in the year 2009 and the pleadings were submitted in the year 2013 and the award was passed in the year 2016. Hence, we are of the view that the interest awarded by the learned Single Judge at 14% for the pre arbitration period and for the pendente lite period be reduced to 9% per annum.”
Tripura High Court
Case Title : Sri Kashinath Bhattacharjee v. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) & Anr.
Case Number : Arbitration Petition No. 09 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (TRI) 6
On 10 August, the Tripura High Court held that an employee or officer named as an arbitrator in an agreement executed before 23 October 2015 becomes ineligible to act as arbitrator if arbitration had not commenced before the 2015 amendment to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Chief Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao allowed Kashinath Bhattacharjee's arbitration petition in a dispute under a Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) tender agreement and rejected BSNL's attempt to appoint its General Manager as the sole arbitrator, instead appointing retired Tripura Judicial Service officer Swapan Bhattacharjee as arbitrator. The Bench observed:
“A plain reading of this provision of law indicates that even in respect of an agreement entered into before 23.10.2015 (which provided that an employee or officer or one of the parties will be the Arbitrator), if no arbitrator had been appointed prior to 23.10.2015 in relation to a dispute between the parties to the arbitration agreement, then notwithstanding such prior agreement to the contrary, such officer or employee or one of the parties (who would fall under the categories specified in the Seventh Schedule), would be ineligible to be appointed as an Arbitrator after 23.10.2015.”
Chhattisgarh High Court
Officers Representing Union Of India Cannot Independently Challenge Award: Chhattisgarh High Court
Case Title : General Manager/South East Central Railway & Anr. v. ARSS SIP (JV) & Ors.
Case Number : ARBA No. 66 of 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (CHH) 22
The Chhattisgarh High Court on 10 August held that officers or representatives appearing for the Union of India in arbitral proceedings cannot independently challenge an arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, merely because they represented the Union during the proceedings.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal dismissed an appeal filed by officers of the South East Central Railway, holding that where an arbitral award operates against the Union of India, only the Union can invoke Section 34 to seek its setting aside and its officers cannot exercise that right independently. The judges held:
“Representation of a party and being a party are two distinct concepts. An authorized officer, counsel, representative or functionary appearing on behalf of a party does not thereby become a separate party. The rights available under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 belong to the party contemplated by the Act of 1996 and cannot be independently exercised by the officer merely because he represented or acted for that party during the arbitral proceedings.”
Patna High Court
CPC Applies To Court Proceedings Arising From Arbitration Unless Excluded: Patna High Court
Case Title : The Bihar State Warehousing Corporation & Anr. v. M/s Pushpheera Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Case Number : Commercial Appeal No. 15 of 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(PAT) 21
The Patna High Court on 6 August held that while the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) does not bind arbitral tribunals, it applies to court proceedings arising from an arbitral award unless expressly excluded.
A Division Bench comprising Justices Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Ramesh Chand Malviya set aside a Commercial Court order dismissing the Bihar State Warehousing Corporation's challenge to a Rs. 5.99 crore arbitral award after it cured a Rs. 245 court fee deficit 62 days beyond the statutory outer limit. The judges held:
“Section 19 of the Act of 1996 only provides that the arbitral tribunal shall not be bound of CPC. It only excludes the applicability of CPC before the arbitral tribunal and not the proceedings before the court arising out of the arbitral award.”
Telangana High Court
Case Title : Kambhampati Venkata Rama Krishna Rao v. M/s Amarkrishna Constructions and Developers
Case Number : Arbitration Application No. 196 of 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(TEL) 58
The Telangana High Court has held that a retired partner could invoke an arbitration clause in a Reconstitution of a partnership deed (retirement deed) because the clause covered disputes between the parties and did not limit arbitration to existing partners.
Referring to Article 12 of the deed, Justice K. Lakshman ruled, “The arbitration clause clearly specifies that the disputes arising between the parties shall be referred to arbitration. It is nowhere stated that disputes between existing partners can only be referred to arbitration. The Applicant was a party to the said agreement, therefore, the questions as to the Applicant's right to invoke arbitration or locus standi do not arise.,”
The ruling came on an arbitration application filed by Kambhampati Venkata Rama Krishna Rao against Amarkrishna Constructions and Developers. The court appointed retired District and Sessions Judge D. Ravindra Sharma as the sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties.
Gauhati High Court
Case Title : SRK Metals and Plastics (Pvt.) Ltd. v. State of Assam and Ors.
Case Number: WP(C)/8288/2019
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(GAU) 26
The Gauhati High Court has recently ruled that an MSME supplier's claim for statutory interest on delayed payments cannot be disregarded merely because the principal contractual amount has subsequently been paid.
Justice Kaushik Goswami observed, “Section 17 of the MSMED Act expressly makes the buyer liable to pay the amount due together with interest thereon as provided under Section 16. Therefore, subject to verification of the relevant dates of acceptance/deemed acceptance and the period of delay, the petitioner's claim for statutory interest cannot be disregarded merely because the principal contractual amount has subsequently been paid.”
The order came on a writ petition filed by SRK Metals and Plastics (Pvt.) Ltd. The company had approached the High Court after its contractual bills were not cleared.
Calcutta High Court
Case Title : The Kolkata Municipal Corporation v. Bengal Shelter Housing Development Ltd.
Case Number : CO 1409 of 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 196
The Calcutta High Court has directed an arbitral tribunal to record the chief examination of all witnesses proposed by a claimant before beginning the cross-examination of any of them.
The court held that this was necessary to prevent a later witness from filling gaps in the evidence of an earlier witness and prejudicing the other side.
Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul), setting aside a procedural order passed by the sole arbitrator in a dispute between the Kolkata Municipal Corporation and Bengal Shelter Housing Development Ltd., observed:
“Witness action should therefore take place by taking on record the chief of all witnesses before their respective cross examination takes place to prevent miscarriage of justice.”