Nominal Index
R.V. Anderson Associates Ltd. v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, Supreme Court, 2026 LLBiz SC 106
Central Warehousing Corporation v. Indo Arya Logistics (A Unit of Indo Arya Central Transport Ltd.), 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 252
Synergy Consultants v. M/s T.D. Williamson India Pvt. Ltd., 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 244
Man Industries (India) Limited v. GAIL (India) Limited, 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 258
SARR Freights Corporation & Anr. v. Argo Coral Maritime Ltd., 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 259
Cosco Blossoms Pvt Ltd v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 255
R.K. Infra and Engineering (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. The Sandur Manganese and Iron Ore Ltd., 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 32
Coorg Cineplex & Ors v. K.J. Nagendra Gupta & Anr., 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 34
Ugro Capital Ltd v. Vallabh Metal Industries Ltd & Anr., 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 67
TD-ITD CEM Joint Venture v. Kolkata Metro Rail Corporation Limited, 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 69
SREI Equipment Finance Limited v. Roadwings International Private Limited, 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 70
God's Own Country Health Resorts v. Marriot Hotels India Pvt. Ltd., 2026 LLBiz HC (KER) 49
Anoop Nambiar v. Union of India & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC (KER) 54
ED&F Man Liquid Products Italia Srl & Ors. v. Emil Traders Private Limited, 2026 LLBiz HC (KER) 53
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd v. Microtex Energy Pvt Ltd, 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 130
Arenel (Private) Limited v. M/s Aakash Packaging, 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 126
Edelweiss Financial Services Ltd v. Percept Finserve Pvt Ltd & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 139
Osterreichischer Lloyd Seereederei (Cyprus) Ltd. v. Victore Ships Pvt. Ltd., 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 129
OWH SE i.L. v. United Company RUSAL International PJSC & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC (TEL) 7
Ace Consultants v. J&K Projects Construction Corporation Ltd. & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC (JAM) 9
C.J. Charles Rajkumar v. Mrs. Rahamathunnisa, 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 63
Lss Ocean Transport DMCC v. K.I. (International) Limited, 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 67
The Project Director / Member Secretary, Tamil Nadu State AIDS Control Society v. The State Human Rights Commission, Tamil Nadu & Dr. Lucas Babu, 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 74
J. Nithyanandham v. M.V.S. Gramany and Sons & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 75
Sunil Garg v. Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board, 2026 LLBiz HC (PNH) 13
Government of Andhra Pradesh v. M/s SCLCR 18G Joint Venture & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC (APH) 24
Dhanjit Sarma v. Union of India & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC (GAU) 7
Supreme Court
Case Title : Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai v. M/s R.V. Anderson Associates Ltd.
Case Number : SLP (C) Nos. 23846–23847 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 106
The Supreme Court on Wednesday observed that a party's conduct during arbitration is the clearest indicator of how it understood the arbitration agreement, and cannot later adopt a contrary interpretation to challenge the tribunal after an unfavourable award, while upholding an arbitral award against the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM).
A Division Bench of Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Atul S. Chandurkar dismissed MCGM's challenge to an arbitral award passed in favour of R.V. Anderson Associates Ltd., observing that the manner in which parties act upon a contract is the best guide to interpreting its terms.
“A party cannot keep a 'jurisdictional ace' up their sleeve and then claim that filing of the jurisdictional challenge under Section 16 would go back in time and wipe out the past conduct and acquiescence of the party which would clearly evince how the contractual terms were viewed by the parties. If the same is permitted, it will erode the basic principles of alternative dispute resolution and ethos of arbitration,” the bench observed.
High Courts
Delhi High Court
Delhi High Court Restores Arbitral Award In Warehouse Fire Case Involving CWC–Indo Arya Logistics
Case Title : Central Warehousing Corporation v. Indo Arya Logistics (A Unit of Indo Arya Central Transport Ltd.)
Case Number : FAO (COMM) 75/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 252
The Delhi High Court on 10 March restored an arbitral award of Rs. 91,62,992 in a warehouse fire dispute between Central Warehousing Corporation and Indo Arya Logistics, holding that the Commercial Court had exceeded its limited powers by substituting its own view on negligence.
A Division Bench of Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora observed that the arbitrator's inference (that Indo Arya Logistics was negligent) was a plausible view arising from the circumstances of the fire.
The Court held that under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the District Court could not interfere with an award unless the arbitrator's conclusion was contrary to public policy or patently illegal. It also reiterated:
“The mere fact that the cause of the accident is unknown does not prevent the plaintiff from recovering the damages… sometimes the fact that the accident occurred may itself constitute evidence of negligence."
Case Title : Synergy Consultants v. M/s T.D. Williamson India Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : FAO(OS)(COMM) 153/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 244
The Delhi High Court on Tuesday upheld an arbitral award in a commission dispute between a consultancy firm and an oil and gas pipeline services company. The court affirmed the arbitrator's view that a representative appointed under a commercial agreement does not automatically become entitled to commission every time the company secures a project from the same customer.
A Division Bench of Justice Anil Kshetrapal and Justice Amit Mahajan dismissed an appeal and affirmed an earlier decision refusing to set aside the award.
"A commercial arrangement of this nature, whereby a representative is appointed to promote products and assist in securing projects, reasonably admits of an interpretation that commission is linked to the services rendered and the extent of participation in the concerned transaction. The view adopted by the Arbitrator, that the representative would be entitled to commission commensurate with the work performed or assistance actually rendered, is a possible and commercially sensible interpretation of the agreement", it held.
Case Title : Man Industries (India) Limited Versus Gail (India) Limited
Case Number : O.M.P. (COMM) 191/2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 258
The Delhi High Court has recently dismissed a petition challenging an arbitral award passed in favour of GAIL (India) Limited, reiterating that the scope of interference under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is limited. The court said it cannot re-appreciate evidence or disturb an award merely because another interpretation of the contract is possible, so long as the arbitrator's view is a plausible one.
Justice Amit Bansal observed that the arbitral tribunal had interpreted the contract to mean that the price reduction schedule would apply if the supplier failed to adhere to the agreed monthly delivery schedule of pipes.
Case Title : SARR Freights Corporation & Anr. v. Argo Coral Maritime Ltd.
Case Number : CS(OS) 868/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 259
The Delhi High Court recently reiterated that the jurisdiction of civil courts is not barred merely because arbitration is seated outside India but said that the power to restrain such proceedings must be exercised only in exceptional circumstances, refusing to stop arbitration initiated in London by Argo Coral Maritime Ltd. against SARR Freights Corporation and SARR Freights Limited.
Relying on the top court's ruling in Engineering Projects (India) Limited Versus MSA Global LLC (Oman), Justice Mini Pushkarna observed, “The jurisdiction of Indian Civil Courts is not excluded merely because arbitration is seated abroad, and Courts retain residual equitable powers to prevent abuse of arbitral process.”
Case Title : Cosco Blossoms Pvt Ltd Versus Oriental Insurance Company Ltd
Case Number : O.M.P. (COMM) 568/2016
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 255
The Delhi High Court has set aside an arbitral award, holding that an arbitral tribunal cannot rely solely on a defective surveyor's report while ignoring material evidence placed on record. The court observed that although a surveyor's report is an important piece of evidence in insurance disputes, it is not sacrosanct and cannot be treated as conclusive when it suffers from serious infirmities.
Justice Jasmeet Singh observed,
“The Award is squarely based on a survey report which, though an important piece of evidence, is not a sacrosanct document and cannot be accepted at face value when it is clearly defective. The Arbitrator could not have relied solely on the survey report to deliver its findings while disregarding other vital evidence placed on record.”
Karnataka High Court
Case Title : R.K. Infra and Engineering (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s The Sandur Manganese and Iron Ore Ltd.
Case Number : Commercial Appeal No. 63 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 32
The Karnataka High Court has recently observed that the commencement of arbitral proceedings will be governed by agreed institutional rules and not necessarily by Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, since the provision applies only “unless otherwise agreed by the parties."
Dismissing a contractor's appeal against a Rs 7.99-crore arbitral award, the court observed that “It is apparent from the plain language of Section 21 of the A&C Act that the arbitral proceedings are deemed to commence on the date when a request that the disputes be referred to arbitration is received by the non-claimant. However, the opening words of Section 21 make it clear that this is subject to the parties agreeing otherwise.”
Case Title : Coorg Cineplex & Ors v. K.J. Nagendra Gupta & Anr.
Case Number : Commercial Appeal No. 34 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 34
The Karnataka High Court has recently upheld a Commercial Court order rejecting a plea for interim measures filed by Coorg Cineplex and its partners, holding that after the expiry of the lease, the landlord cannot be restrained from raising objections before the licensing authority regarding the renewal of a theatre licence.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C.M. Poonacha dismissed the appeal filed by the Cineplex, which had sought directions to the licensing authority to consider renewal of the theatre licence without insisting on the landlord's no-objection certificate.
The court noted that the licensing authority was not a party to the arbitration proceedings and is required to act in accordance with law.
It observed, “Clearly, the respondents are entitled to raise their objections before the licensing authority. We find no reason that would compel the respondents to refrain from raising objections. Conversely, we do not accept that the appellants have any right to insist that the respondents desist from raising their objections.”
Calcutta High Court
Case Title : Ugro Capital Ltd vs Vallabh Metal Industries Ltd And Anr.
Case Number : AP-COM 735 OF 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 67
The Calcutta High Court has held that while exercising jurisdiction to extend the mandate of an arbitral tribunal under Section 29A of the Arbitration Act, the court is concerned only with whether extension of time is warranted and cannot examine the merits of issues pending before the tribunal.
While deciding a petition filed by UGRO Capital Ltd seeking extension of the mandate of a sole arbitrator in a dispute with Vallabh Metal Industries, Justice Gaurang Kanth observed:
“In any event, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, this Court is concerned only with the question whether extension of the mandate is warranted and not with the merits of issues pending before the Tribunal.”
Case Title : TD-ITD CEM Joint Venture v. Kolkata Metro Rail Corporation Limited
Case Number : APOT No. 298 of 2025 with GA-COM/1/2025 and GA-COM/2/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 69
The Calcutta High Court recently dismissed an appeal filed by a contractor, affirming a single judge's decision that had set aside an arbitral award arising out of the 2019 Kolkata East-West Metro tunnel accident.
A Division Bench of Justice Debangsu Basak and Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi held that the arbitral tribunal committed patent illegality by discarding expert evidence on the basis of its own technical assumptions drawn from personal expertise rather than material on record.
The bench observed:
"We have noted that the arbitral tribunal, while deciding the issues, imputed its personal expertise in civil engineering and concluded that the report submitted by IIT, Madras may not be conclusive and it was dependent upon several other factors. However, such findings were not based on any concrete evidence rather, it was mere assumption based on the personal knowledge and experience of the tribunal and the same was used to discard positive evidence adduced by the respondent".
'Purported Award' Can Be Challenged Under Section 34 Of Arbitration Act: Calcutta High Court
Case Title : SREI Equipment Finance Limited v. Roadwings International Private Limited
Case Number : AP-COM 529 of 2022 (With Connected Matters)
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 70
The Calcutta High Court on Friday held that the scope of challenge under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 extends beyond existing awards to include a “purported award” where the very existence of the award is in dispute.
A Single Bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya held that “For the purpose of furtherance of the objective of the 1996 Act and to avoid rendering its provisions nugatory by relegating the parties to the rigmarole of a regular civil suit, the power to entertain a challenge even on the ground of non-existence of a purported award has to be read into the fabric of Section 34 itself. In order to achieve such objective, the expression “an arbitral award” in Section 34 has to be read up to include “or a purported award” as well. If so construed, a challenge to a so-called award on the ground of non-existence of such award will come under the umbrella of Section 34 itself, subject, of course, to the grounds stipulated in Section 34 being otherwise attracted.”
Kerala High Court
Case Title : God's Own Country Health Resorts v Marriot Hotels India Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : OP(C) NO. 2962 OF 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (KER) 49
The Kerala High Court on 23 February, observed that interim relief granted under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the Act) does not automatically get vitiated merely because arbitral proceedings were not commenced within 90 days as required under Section 9(2) of the Act.
Justice T.R. Ravi clarified that proceedings to enforce the interim relief would also constitute proceedings under Section 9, and therefore the 90-day calculation is not limited to the original interim relief order.
The Bench held:
“Going by the judgment in Amazon.com(supra), even orders for enforcement of a protection order given under Section 9(1) would continue to be an order under Section 9(1). The statutory provision does not say that arbitral proceedings should be started within 90 days of the first order issued under Section 9(1).”
Case Title : Anoop Nambiar v. Union of India and Ors
Case Number : AR 47 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (KER) 54
The Kerala High Court on Friday held that the High Court cannot invoke its powers under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, in disputes governed by the Special Economic Zones Act, 2005, where the statute vests the power to appoint an arbitrator with the Central Government and the requirements for the exercise of Section 11 jurisdiction are not satisfied.
A coram of Justice S Manu rejected an arbitration request seeking the appointment of an arbitrator to resolve disputes with a company operating in the Infopark Special Economic Zone. The court observed that the SEZ Act provides for designated courts to adjudicate civil disputes arising in Special Economic Zones, and in their absence, such disputes must be referred to arbitration, with the arbitrator to be appointed by the Central Government.
Case Title : ED&F Man Liquid Products Italia Srl and Ors v. Emil Traders Private Limited
Case Number : Appeal (ICA) No. 1 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (KER) 53
The Kerala High Court recently held that courts possess wide powers under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act to grant interim measures, even after the arbitral award is passed but before its enforcement.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. held that “the expressions “securing the amount in dispute” and “such other interim measure of protection as may appear to the Court to be just and convenient” are important features of the said section, which confer wide and sweeping powers on the Court to pass interim measures even after an award is passed but before its enforcement.” it observed
Bombay High Court
Case Title : Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd vs Microtex Energy Pvt Ltd
Case Number : COMM. ARBITRATION PETITION (L.) NO. 33928 OF 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 130
The Bombay High Court on Tuesday observed that an arbitral award passed through ad hoc arbitration cannot be invalidated merely because one of the parties is an MSME supplier who could have approached the Facilitation Council under the MSMED Act.
Justice Sandeep V. Marne dismissed a petition filed by Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) challenging an arbitral award passed in favour of Microtex Energy Pvt. Ltd,an MSME.
“Therefore, if parties opt for ad hoc arbitration, the award is not rendered invalid merely because one of the parties to the dispute is a supplier capable of seeking reference under Section 18 of the MSMED Act," the court held.
Fundamental Evidence Principles Cannot Be Ignored In Arbitration: Bombay High Court
Case Title : Arenel (Private) Limited Vs. M/s. Aakash Packaging
Case Number : COMM. ARBITRATION APPEAL (L) NO.30982 OF 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 126
The Bombay High Court on 9 March held that while arbitral proceedings are not strictly bound by the technical provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, the fundamental principles governing the burden of proof and the admissibility of evidence cannot be ignored to uphold an arbitral award that is patently illegal.
The Bench observed:
“Section 102 of the Indian Evidence Act provides that the burden of proof in a suit or proceeding lies on that person, who would fail if no evidence at all, was given on either side. The strict rules of the Evidence Act may not be enforced in an arbitral proceeding but the fundamental rules of law and evidence cannot be ignored to affirm an Award which on the face of it is patently illegal.”
Case Title : Edelweiss Financial Services Ltd vs Percept Finserve Pvt Ltd & Ors
Case Number : COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION APPLICATION (L) NO.5187 OF 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 139
The Bombay High Court recently reiterated that when an arbitral award is set aside, the period between the commencement of the earlier arbitration and the date of the court's order is required to be excluded while computing limitation for initiating fresh arbitral proceedings.
A single bench of Justice Sandeep V. Marne held that “Thus, when Arbitral Award is set aside by the Court either under Section 34 or under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act, the period between commencement of arbitration and date of order of the Court is required to be excluded for the purpose of computation of limitation for commencement of fresh arbitral proceedings with respect to the dispute so submitted".
Case Title : Osterreichischer Lloyd Seereederei (Cyprus) Ltd. Versus Victore Ships Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 398 OF 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 129
The Bombay High Court on Tuesday held that courts can grant interim protective measures under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act to secure the amount awarded under a foreign arbitral award even after a petition seeking its recognition and enforcement has been filed.
Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan made the observation while hearing a petition filed by Osterreichischer Lloyd Seereederei (Cyprus) Ltd against Victore Ships Pvt Ltd seeking interlocutory protection to secure the awarded amount pending enforcement of a foreign arbitral award dated March 23, 2020.
Rejecting the respondent's objection to the maintainability of the petition, the court said the jurisdiction of a Section 9 court continues until the foreign award becomes a decree of an Indian court.
“It is after the stage at which the foreign award becomes a decree of an Indian Court that the words 'but before it is enforced in accordance with section 36' used in Section 9(1) of the Act would present any basis for the Section 9 Court to refrain from entertaining prayers for any protective measures, since at that stage execution proceedings would have commenced, without the need to file a new set of proceedings,” the court observed.
Telangana High Court
Case Title : OWH SE i.L. v United Company RUSAL International PJSC & Ors.
Case Number : Execution Petition (Arbitration) No. 2 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (TEL) 7
The Telangana High Court has recently restrained AL Plus Holding LLC, a subsidiary of award-debtor United Company RUSAL International PJSC, from transferring its 26% shareholding in Pioneer Aluminium Industries Limited while hearing enforcement proceedings of foreign arbitral awards worth about Rs 2,840 crore obtained by OWH SE i.L.
A single bench of Justice T. Madhavi Devi directed that “this Court is inclined to direct the respondent No.2 not to transfer its shares in Pioneer Aluminum Industries Limited to the extent of 26% of total shares of the said company as stated by the petitioner in his affidavit till the next date of hearing.”
It observed that the direction was required “in order to see that the award is not defeated by any attempts to divert the funds by the arbitral award debtor.”
Jammu & Kashmir & Ladakh High Court
J&K & Ladakh High Court Refers Contract Dispute To Arbitration, Leaves Limitation Issue To Tribunal
Case Title : Ace Consultants v. J&K Projects Construction Corporation Ltd. & Ors.
Case Number : Arb P No.14/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (JAM) 9
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has recently reiterated that while deciding petitions for appointment of an arbitrator, the court cannot undertake a detailed inquiry into limitation, and such issues must be decided by the arbitral tribunal.
The court was hearing four petitions filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, seeking appointment of an independent arbitrator to adjudicate disputes arising between Ace Consultants, a proprietorship firm, and J&K Projects Construction Corporation Limited, regarding unpaid contractual amounts under certain works.
Justice Sanjay Dhar observed, “This Court, while exercising its power under Section 11 (6) of the Act, cannot go into this issue and it is only the arbitral tribunal, who can go into all these issues during arbitral proceedings.”
Madras High Court
Interim Relief Under Arbitration Act Cannot Supplant Execution Proceedings: Madras High Court
Case Title : C.J.Charles Rajkumar Versus Mrs.Rahamathunnisa (died) W/O A.Isfahai
Case Number : O.A.No.1188 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 63
The Madras High Court recently observed that a petition seeking interim relief under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act cannot be used as a substitute for execution proceedings under the Civil Procedure Code.
“An application under Section 9 can supplement but cannot supplant the process of execution contemplated through Order XXI of the Code,” Justice N. Anand Venkatesh said.
The court explained that although a Section 9 petition may remain maintainable until an arbitral award is fully satisfied, that does not mean the court must entertain such a petition in every case. The power to grant interim measures under the provision is discretionary, particularly where execution proceedings concerning the same award are already pending before the executing court.
Case Title : Lss Ocean Transport Dmcc Versus K.I. (International) Limited
Case Number : O.S.A (CAD) No. 15 of 2024 and CMP No.3586 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 67
The Madras High Court has allowed enforcement of a foreign arbitral award against a group company after noting that it had voluntarily issued a cheque as security for the disputed demurrage claim arising from a shipping contract.
A division bench of Justice C.V. Karthikeyan and Justice K. Kumaresh Babu observed that by issuing the cheque as security for the award amount, the company had effectively undertaken to satisfy the award if the charterer failed to do so. It therefore could not avoid liability by claiming that it was not a signatory to the arbitration agreement.
“They had knowledge that they would be made a party in an application seeking enforcement of the award. Having issued the cheque with such knowledge, they cannot now put forth a plea that, since they were not parties to the agreement or party to the arbitral proceedings, they cannot be made liable jointly and severally with the 1st respondent for the award passed by the arbitral tribunal. If permitted this would indirectly indicate encouragement of an act of deception and underlying fraud", it observed.
Case Title : The Project Director / Member Secretary, Tamil Nadu State AIDS Control Society v. The State Human Rights Commission, Tamil Nadu & Dr. Lucas Babu
Case Number : W.P. No. 21462 of 2021
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 74
The Madras High Court has recently set aside a recommendation of the Tamil Nadu State Human Rights Commission directing payment of ₹1 lakh compensation in a dispute arising out of a funding agreement between the Tamil Nadu State AIDS Control Society (TANSACS) and an NGO, holding that the matter was governed by a contractual dispute-resolution clause providing for grievance redressal and arbitration.
The order was passed by a Division Bench of Justice Dr. G. Jayachandran and Justice Shamim Ahmed in a writ petition filed by TANSACS challenging the Commission's order dated 4 May 2021.
“We find that the State Human Rights Commission ought not to have entertained the complaint in view of the terms of the agreement as the facts purely centers around the enforcement of the contractual obligations between the parties. Despite the clear terms of the agreement, the State Human Rights Commission exceeded its powers by conducting enquiry and had issued recommendations extracted above, which is totally beyond the jurisdiction of State Human Rights Commission. Hence, the said recommendations are liable to be quashed.”
Case Title : J. Nithyanandham v. M.V.S. Gramany and Sons & Ors.
Case Number : A No. 4679 of 2025 in C.S. (Comm. Div.) No. 154 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 75
The Madras High Court has refused to refer a trademark infringement and passing-off dispute over the snuff brand “J.S. Madras Snuff” to arbitration, holding that the arbitration clause in a partnership deed covering disputes between partners cannot bind a non-signatory merely because the alleged infringer is the partner's son.
Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy examined Clause 13 of the partnership deed and observed,
“The language of such clause makes it clear that it pertains to disputes or differences arising between the parties to the partnership deed. It is implicit that it should be a dispute pertaining to a matter dealt with at least broadly in the partnership deed. The partnership deed does not discuss the intellectual property of the partnership firm in general and clearly does not refer specifically to the marks forming the subject of this suit.”
Punjab & Haryana High Court
Case Title : Sunil Garg v. Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board
Case Number : ARB-35-2026 (O&M)
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (PNH) 13
The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently dismissed an arbitration petition seeking appointment of an arbitrator while also seeking termination of the mandate of a sole arbitrator already conducting the proceedings.
A Single Bench of Justice Jasgurpreet Singh Puri imposed costs of Rs 25,000 on the petitioner and observed,
“It is very surprising as to how an application under Section 11 of the Act would be maintainable before this Court and a specific query in this regard was put to the learned counsel for the applicant, to which he could not answer. Similarly, it is also very surprising as to how an application under Sections 14 and 15 of the Act seeking termination of the mandate of an Arbitrator would be maintainable before this Court and that too read with Section 11 of the Act because such an application, if any, has to be filed before the learned Court as defined under Section 2(1)(e) of the Act and therefore, the applicant cannot seek substitution of the Arbitrator from this Court which is not the Court as defined under Section 2(1)(e) of the Act.”
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case Title : Government of Andhra Pradesh v. M/s SCLCR 18G Joint Venture & Ors.
Case Number : CMA No.1141 of 2018; CRP No.6787 of 2018
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(APH) 24
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has recently dismissed an appeal challenging a Rs 199.96-crore arbitral award arising out of the Pulichintala Dam project dispute after the state failed to correct the description of the party from “Government of Andhra Pradesh” to “State of Andhra Pradesh” despite being given an opportunity to do so.
A Division Bench of Justice R. Raghunandan Rao and Justice T.C.D. Sekhar, in a judgment dated March 6, 2026, held that under Article 300 of the Constitution and Section 79 of the Civil Procedure Code, a State government must sue or be sued in the name of the “State of Andhra Pradesh”.
“This Article, in the light of the above judgments, would have to be understood to mean that "the Government of Andhra Pradesh" while being sued or suing, should be described as the "State of Andhra Pradesh". Put another way, the party to the litigation is actually the Government of Andhra Pradesh but the said Government of State is to be described as the State of Andhra Pradesh. Any technical defect, of not naming the appropriate party, in a case where an employee of the State is arrayed as a party instead of the State, can be corrected at the primary level and for such matters can be remanded to the primary level", it said.
Gauhati High Court
Case Title : Dhanjit Sarma v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : WP(C) 661/2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(GAU) 7
The Gauhati High Court has recently allowed a writ petition against ESIC authorities over non-payment of dues under a government procurement contract, despite the existence of an arbitration clause, after finding the state authority's conduct arbitrary.
The court observed, "In such facts and circumstances, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the refusal of the respondent No.3 to make payments is an arbitrary and unreasonable attempt, violating the protection guaranteed by Article 14 of the Constitution of India.There is no impediment to adjudicate the grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition only because of a clause in the General Terms and Condition of the GeM which requires referral of disputes arising out of the contract to arbitration. This Court has noticed that there is no clause in the contract or the GTC which allows withholding of payments beyond 10(ten) days after issuing the CRAC. Therefore, the respondent No.3 remains liable to release the contracted amount to the petitioner forthwith”