NOMINAL INDEX
JioStar India Pvt Ltd vs Green Bean Sports Marketing, 2026 LLBiz SC 123
Gini AND Jony Ltd v. Benetton India Pvt. Ltd., 2026 LLBiz SC 133
Bharat Udyog Ltd. (formerly known as M/s Jai Hind Contractors Pvt. Ltd.) v. Ambernath Municipal Council through Commissioner & Anr., 2026 LLBiz SC 129
Kalanithi Maran vs SpiceJet Ltd, 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 292
M/s National Highways Authority of India v. M/s BEL-ACC (JV), 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 300
ERA Infra Engineering Limited v. National Highways Authority of India & Anr., 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 296
MMTC Limited v. M/s Knowledge Infrastructure & Anr., 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 298
Ramsethu Infrastructure v. Indian Railway Welfare Organisation, 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 299
Wadia Techno Engineering Services Limited v. Director General of Married Accommodation Project & Anr., 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 297
MSA Global LLC (Oman) v. Engineering Projects (India) Limited, 2026 LLBiz SC 124
Oriental Insurance Company v Add On Retail Pvt Ltd, 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 166
ICICI Securities Ltd vs Riddhi Siddhi Investment and Anr, 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 158
Reliance Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd vs Hiroo Hotchand Advani & Ors, 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 168
State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. v. Gilcon Project Service Ltd. JV Scapes Associates, 2026 LLBiz HC (CHH) 7
Chhattisgarh State Agriculture Marketing Board versus Price Water House Coopers Pvt. Ltd, 2026 LLBiz HC (CHH) 6
Srikanta Patra v. IndusInd Bank Ltd., 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 76
ADRPlexus Medical Services Pvt Ltd v Dr Vivekandan K S, 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 88
Supreme Court
Case Title : ABS Marine Services vs The Andaman and Nicobar Administration
Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 3658-3659 of 2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 127
The Supreme Court expressed shock at the stand taken by the Andaman and Nicobar Administration that a contractual clause made its decision final and beyond challenge, holding that such a term offended the rule of law. The court made the observationwhile setting aside a July 11, 2018 judgment of the Calcutta High Court and restoring an arbitral award of Rs 2.87 crore in favour of ABS Marine Services.
A bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K.V. Viswanathan observed: “It is shocking that the respondent administration with all seriousness at their command contend that under Clause 3.20 not only have they a right to decide wilfulness or neglect on the part of the manning agent in cases where liability is disputed, but also that such decision cannot be challenged in any court of law or before the arbitrator. We reject the contentions, since we have held the dispute to be within the jurisdiction of the arbitrator.”
Case Title : Nagaraj V. Mylandla & Anr. v. PI Opportunities Fund-I & Ors.
Case Number : Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 31866–68 of 2025 and 31945–31947 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 132
The Supreme Court of India held that enforcement of foreign arbitral awards cannot be resisted under Section 48 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, on a party's plea re-characterizing factual disputes as issues of public policy, particularly as courts cannot re-examine awards on merits at the enforcement stage. A Division Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Vinod Chandran dismissed Special Leave Petitions filed by Nagaraj V. Mylandla and Sharada Mylandla against enforcement of a Singapore-seated arbitral award directing payment of Rs 6,614 million to PI Opportunities Fund-I, Rs 2,804 million to Millenna FVCI Limited, Rs 777 million to NYLIM I and Rs 1,093 million to NYLIM II.
“By giving a different colour to a factual issue, it is not open to a party to the foreign award to seek to bring it within the ambit of Section 48(2)(b) of the Arbitration Act by raising a' public policy' ground. The doctrine of 'transnational issue estoppel' would bar the same," it observed.
Case Title : JioStar India Pvt Ltd vs Green Bean Sports Marketing
Case Number : Petition(s) for Arbitration No(s). 16/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 123
The Supreme Court issued notice in an arbitration petition filed by Jiostar India Pvt. Ltd. seeking appointment of an arbitrator in a dispute with UAE-based Green Bean Sports Marketing arising out of a media rights sub-licence agreement relating to the Indian Premier League (IPL) for the territory of Bangladesh.
A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi, after hearing counsel, directed issuance of notice returnable on May 15, 2026.
Supreme Court Refuses To Interfere With Arbitrator Appointment In Gini & Jony–Benetton Dispute
Case Title : Gini AND Jony Ltd v. Benetton India Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : SLP (C) 10279 OF 2026
CITATION: 2026 LLBiz SC 133
The Supreme Court dismissed a Special Leave Petition filed by Gini & Jony Ltd. challenging the Delhi High Court's order appointing an arbitrator in its dispute with Benetton India Pvt. Ltd. arising from a distribution agreement for sale of United Colors of Benetton apparel products, involving an unpaid amount of about Rs 91 lakh. After hearing the parties, Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Atul S. Chandurkar dismissed the special leave petition and said:
“After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners, we are not inclined to entertain the present SLP and to interfere with the order passed by the High Court.”
Case Title: Bharat Udyog Ltd. (formerly known as M/s Jai Hind Contractors Pvt. Ltd.) v. Ambernath Municipal Council through Commissioner & Anr.,
Case Number: Special Leave Petition (C) No. 1127 of 2017
Citation: 2026 LLBiz SC 129
The Supreme Court dismissed a special leave petition filed by Bharat Udyog Ltd, holding that the State Government had no authority under Section 143-A(3) of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965, which deals with issuance of policy directions regarding the levy and collection of octroi, to appoint an arbitrator between a Municipal Council and its agent.
A bench of Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Alok Aradhe observed: “State Government has no authority under Section 143-A(3) of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 to appoint an arbitrator for the agent and the Municipal Council. The exercise of such power by the government cannot be equated to Section 4 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, for there is no such agreement.”
Delhi High Court
Case Title : Kalanithi Maran vs SpiceJet Ltd
Case Number : OMP (COMM) 42 OF 2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 292
The Delhi High Court has rejected a plea by SpiceJet Ltd. seeking to substitute the court-directed cash deposit of Rs. 144.51 crore with security in the form of a Gurugram property owned by the airline, holding that the request was an abuse of process as similar grounds had already been raised before the Supreme Court and rejected. Justice Subramonium Prasad passed the order while dealing with applications seeking modification of directions issued on January 19, 2026, by which the Court had directed SpiceJet to deposit the balance decretal amount arising from an arbitral award in favour of Kalanithi Maran and Kal Airways Pvt. Ltd.
The court noted that SpiceJet had earlier challenged the January 19, 2026, order before the Supreme Court on similar grounds, including financial difficulty, but the special leave petition was dismissed with costs after being termed an abuse of process. In these circumstances, the High Court held that the same arguments could not be repeated in the modification applications.
Delhi High Court Upholds ₹1.93 Crore Arbitral Award In Favour Of BEL-ACC In Dispute With NHAI
Case Title : M/s National Highways Authority of India v. M/s BEL-ACC (JV)
Case Number : O.M.P. (COMM) 341/2020
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 300
On 24 March, the Delhi High Court upheld an arbitral award in favour of BEL-ACC (JV) granting Rs. 1.93 crore towards revised rates, overhead losses, and additional resource deployment. Justice Subramonium Prasad dismissed a petition filed by National Highways Authority of India (NHAI), holding that it does not warrant interference under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Court held:
“...the findings of the learned Arbitral Tribunal demonstrate that a careful balance between the contractual provisions, the conduct of the parties, and the principles of fairness were maintained.”
Case Title : ERA Infra Engineering Limited v. National Highways Authority of India & Anr.
Case Number : ARB. A. (COMM.) 47/2025 & I.A. 22290/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 296
The Delhi High Court has held that rejection of an impleadment application by an arbitral tribunal amounts to a jurisdictional determination under Sections 16(2) and 16(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and is therefore appealable under Section 37 of the Act. Justice Avneesh Jhingan observed that while deciding whether a non-signatory can be added to arbitration proceedings, the tribunal necessarily rules on its own jurisdiction.
Justice Avneesh Jhingan observed that while deciding whether a non-signatory can be added to arbitration proceedings, the tribunal necessarily rules on its own jurisdiction.
“The court on an application for impleadment passes a procedural order but the tribunal in arbitration determines whether it has jurisdiction vis-a-vis the rights and liabilities of a non-signatory to the agreement. While deciding the impleadment of a non-signatory the tribunal deals with the issue of jurisdiction and this falls within the ambit of Section 16(2) and 16(3) of the Act.”
Dues Cannot Be Withheld Till Eternity: Delhi High Court Upholds Award Against MMTC
Case Title : MMTC Limited v. M/s Knowledge Infrastructure & Anr.
Case Number : O.M.P. (COMM) 404/2020
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 298
The Delhi High Court upheld an arbitral award directing MMTC Limited to release withheld amounts of Rs 1.64 crore towards railway surcharge and Rs 56.93 lakh towards detention charges to Knowledge Infrastructure and another party, holding that the amounts could not be retained indefinitely when the alleged liability had not crystallised and the Railways had not processed the claims for years.
“Five years have passed since the demands were raised and yet, the Railways had not processed the claims raised by the Respondents, particularly Claim No. 3 and 4, thereby withholding the same. The view taken by the learned Arbitrator that the claims cannot be withheld till eternity, cannot come within the four corners of the expression 'in contravention with the fundamental policy of India law‟ or 'in conflict with the most basic notions of morality and justice”, the Court observed.
Case Title : Ramsethu Infrastructure v. Indian Railway Welfare Organisation
Case Number : O.M.P. (COMM) 348/2020
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 299
The Delhi High Court upheld an arbitral award in favour of the Indian Railway Welfare Organisation (IRWO), affirming the termination of a housing construction contract and forfeiture of the contractor's bank guarantee and security deposit. The Court held that obstruction by local residents and apprehension of hostility at the site did not fall within the force majeure clause and that the contractor's refusal to resume work amounted to abandonment of the project.
The Bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad observed that, "The learned Arbitrator has interpreted the force majeure clause and has come to the conclusion that the present event on which reliance is placed by the Petitioner will not fall within the four corners of force majeure clause. This Court is in agreement with the view taken by the learned Arbitrator. Even otherwise, as repeatedly held by the Apex Court, the interpretation of a contract, predominantly, is in the domain of the Arbitrator. An award cannot be set aside just because another view is possible or sometimes is even more preferable."
Case Title : Wadia Techno Engineering Services Limited v. Director General of Married Accommodation Project & Anr.
Case Number : FAO(OS) (COMM) 195/2024 & connected matters
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 297
The Delhi High Court dismissed appeals filed by Wadia Techno Engineering Services Limited challenging arbitral awards in disputes arising from consultancy agreements for defence housing projects, holding that the consultant was not entitled to higher fees or compensation for delays.
A Division Bench of Justice Anil Kshetrapal and Justice Amit Mahajan observed, “In the present case, the Tribunal has examined the contractual definition of “Project Cost” (Article 1.9), the structure of consultancy fees (Article 1.10), and the absence of any clause providing for escalation of consultancy fees. The conclusion reached by the Tribunal that the consultancy fee was not subject to revision merely because the cost of the project increased during execution cannot be said to be an interpretation that is implausible or contrary to the contract.
Case Title : MSA Global LLC (Oman) v. Engineering Projects (India) Limited
Case Number : Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 7545 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 124
The Supreme Court has held that the primary ground for restraining MSA Global LLC (Oman) from continuing arbitration proceedings against Engineering Projects (India) Limited ceased to exist after arbitral tribunal member Andre Yeap resigned, whose alleged non-disclosure had formed the basis of the anti-arbitration injunction.
Accordingly, setting aside the Delhi High Court's decision dated December 12, 2025, the Supreme Court restored the appeal to the Division Bench for fresh consideration.
A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi held that: “It appears to us that since the primary reason for injuncting the appellant from pursuing his anti-arbitration suit seems to have vanished, the validity of the order dated 25.07.2025 of the learned Single Judge can be re-examined by the Division Bench of the High Court.”
Bombay High Court
Acceptance Of Insurance Claim Under Protest Not 'Accord And Satisfaction': Bombay High Court
Case Title : Oriental Insurance Company v Add On Retail Pvt Ltd
Case Number : COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION PETITION (L) NO. 30675 OF 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 166
The Bombay High Court held that when a claimant accepts the amount offered by an insurer under protest, such acceptance does not bar the claimant from seeking a higher amount before an arbitral tribunal.
Justice Gauri Godse upheld an arbitral award enhancing the compensation payable to the insured after finding an error in the surveyor's assessment. The Court rejected the insurer's contention that the insured's acceptance of the amount amounted to accord and satisfaction. It observed:
“However, in the present case, there is no admitted claim, and the controversy concerns the application of the principle of accord and satisfaction in light of the claimant's letter dated 16th October 2018 and the discharge voucher signed under protest. I have already recorded reasons that the said letter and the discharge voucher cannot be accepted as a full and final settlement of the claim. Hence, in view of the well established legal principles as discussed in the above paragraphs, the said letter and the discharge voucher cannot be accepted as accord and satisfaction of the claim.”
Figures In Conciliator's Report Do Not Bind Arbitrator: Bombay High Court
Case Title : ICICI Securities Ltd vs Riddhi Siddhi Investment and Anr
Case Number : COMM. ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 390 OF 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 158
The Bombay High Court on 17 March dismissed a petition filed by ICICI Securities Ltd, holding that the amount indicated in a conciliator's report does not constitute an award and does not bind the Arbitral Tribunal in determining the final claim. Justice Sandeep V. Marne upheld an arbitral award of Rs. 23.30 lakh passed in favour of Ridhi Siddhi Investment in a stock trading dispute arising out of margin trading transactions. The Court observed:
“Thus, the amount indicated in the report of the Conciliator does not become the amount awarded to any party or against any party. The said amount has relevance only for the purpose of determination of payment of fees by the claimant for online arbitration. The amount reflected in the report of the Conciliator does not bind the arbitrator, who is not precluded from awarding the claim in the sum higher than the one reflected in the report of the Conciliator.”
Case Title : Reliance Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd vs Hiroo Hotchand Advani & Ors
Case Number : COMMERCIAL EXECUTION APPLICATION NO.43 OF 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 168
The Bombay High Court held that Reliance Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd, having encashed Rs 18.64 lakh offered by borrowers towards full and final settlement without first communicating any objection, must be deemed to have accepted the settlement. It ruled that the company's subsequent claim that the amount was accepted “under protest” was not a valid revocation and that the arbitral awards stood satisfied.
Justice Abhay Ahuja held that once the amount was encashed without prior protest, the creditor could not later dispute the settlement or seek recovery of any further dues. “Admittedly, the Applicant had deposited the demand draft of Rs.18,64,351/- which was offered in full and final settlement by the Respondents and then the communication seeking to raise an issue of incorrect calculations, and that execution proceedings had been initiated for recovery stating that therefore, under protest, the demand draft has been deposited and the same would be adjusted against the total outstanding decretal dues, cannot be said to be a valid revocation as what is offered on condition must be taken as it is offered and the Applicant having encashed the demand draft without first communicating to the Respondents that they do not agree the proposal made by the Respondents, the Applicant must be assumed in terms of Section 8 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 to have accepted the proposal of the Respondents ", it held.
Chhattisgarh High Court
Case Title : State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. v. Gilcon Project Service Ltd. JV Scapes Associates
Case Number : ARBA Nos. 36, 37, 39, 40, 41 & 42 of 2020
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (CHH) 7
The Chhattisgarh High Court on 25 March dismissed the State of Chhattisgarh's appeals and upheld the Commercial Court's order partly setting aside the arbitral award while granting limited relief to Gilcon Project Service Ltd. JV Scapes Associates.
A Bench of Justice Rajani Dubey and Justice Radhakishan Agrawal reiterated that courts exercising jurisdiction under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 cannot reassess evidence or substitute the arbitrator's findings unless the award suffers from patent illegality or violates public policy.
The Court observed:
“The learned Commercial Court minutely appreciated all grounds of application filed by the State and Gilcon Project and rightly passed the order and rightly rejected the applications of the State sans merit and rightly allowed the claim No.1 of the Gilcon Project, which is in respect of admitted amount withheld by the State. Thus, we do not find any illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the learned Commercial Court”.
Chhattisgarh High Court Refuses To Condone 110-Day Delay In Arbitration Appeal Against PwC
Case Title : Chhattisgarh State Agriculture Marketing Board versus Price Water House Coopers Pvt. Ltd
Case Number : ARBA No. 8 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (CHH) 6
The Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed an arbitration appeal filed by the Chhattisgarh State Agriculture Marketing Board against Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd., holding that the Board failed to justify a delay of 110 days in filing the appeal within the time limit prescribed under the Commercial Courts Act.
A division bench of Justices Rajani Dubey and Radhakishan Agrawal held that no sufficient cause was shown to justify the delay beyond the prescribed limitation period under the Commercial Courts Act.
“No satisfactory or reasonable explanation has been furnished for such delay, and the grounds stated do not constitute “sufficient cause.” The cumulative delay of 110 days, without sufficient cause, falls far outside the permissible bounds of delay under The Commercial Courts Act, 2015. Therefore, the application for condonation of delay is without any merit.”, the court observed.
Calcutta High Court
Case Title : Srikanta Patra v. IndusInd Bank Ltd.
Case Number : CO 4388 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 76
The Calcutta High Court held in a dispute between a borrower and IndusInd Bank that even if an arbitration clause permits unilateral appointment of an arbitrator by one party, such a condition would invalidate only the appointment procedure and not the arbitration agreement itself. In a judgment dated March 23, 2026, Justice Om Narayan Rai upheld the referral of the dispute to arbitration while affirming an order of the City Civil Court, Calcutta, which had stayed a civil suit filed by borrower Srikanta Patra and referred the parties to arbitration under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
“The petitioner's contention that the arbitration clause is invalid since the same provides for unilateral appointment of arbitrator by the lender does not appeal. In the considered view of this Court, such a condition would render the unilateral process of appointment of arbitrator invalid but not the arbitration agreement itself", it held.
Case Title : ADRPlexus Medical Services Pvt Ltd v Dr Vivekandan K S
Case Number : Arb Appeal No 29 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 88
The Madras High Court has dismissed an appeal challenging an arbitrator's refusal to send an iPad marked as evidence for expert analysis, holding that the appeal filed by ADRPlexus Medical Services Pvt Ltd was not maintainable under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, particularly where the request was made after completion of the claimant's evidence. A Division Bench of Justice P. Velmurugan and Justice K. Govindarajan Thilakavadi held that ADRPlexus Medical Services Pvt Ltd had failed to justify the need for expert examination and had moved the application only after the chief-examination of its witness before the arbitral tribunal.
“During the adjudication proceedings, after completion of chief examination of the appellant's witness/CW1, the appellant thought it fit to file the instant application as an after-thought, when the appellant did not choose to log in the iPad or call upon the respondent to furnish the login details earlier. In spite of sufficient opportunities granted to the appellant to exhibit the contents of the iPad, for the reasons best known to the appellant, the appellant has not utilised the same, and therefore, the sole Arbitrator has rightly dismissed the application,” the Court observed.