NOMINAL INDEX
Patanjali Ayurved Limited and Ors. Versus Ashav Advisory LLP, 2026 LLBiz SC 196
Pandrol Rahee Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. IRCON International Ltd., 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 518
Cinda Engineering and Construction Private Limited v. CY Engineering India Private Limited, 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 506
Sarvesh Security Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Institute of Human Behavior Resource and Allied Sciences, 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 516
Dewan and Sons and Ors. Vs Harsh International, 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 526
Hazel Mercantile Ltd. v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 537
Prem Lata Surekha v. Chakradhari Surekha, 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 535
Delhi Development Authority Vs Integrated Techno Systems Pvt. Ltd., 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 536
M/s Gowra Petrochem Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s Alfa Chem & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 531
MMTC Limited v. M/s Knowledge Infrastructure & Anr., 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 528
The Asia Health Care Development Private Limited v. State of West Bengal & Others, 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 126
The Peerless General Finance and Investment Company Limited Versus Ganguly Home Search Private Limited and Anr., 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 128
Smt. Juli Bhagat Versus Sri Alok Bhagat and Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 129
M/s Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited v. Sayan Goswami and Anr., 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 120
IDFC First Bank Limited and Another v. Shyamsundar Distributor and Another, 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 122
Kamlesh Kumar Agarwala v. The Estate of Manjan Devi Patni, represented by Nirmal Kumar Jain, 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 132
Public Health Engineering Department, G.T.A. Darjeeling Vs M/s Mohindra Tubes Limited, 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 121
Kessels Engineering Works Pvt. Ltd. Vs Neo Metalicks Limited, 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 136
Kuldeep Singh and Another v. Union of India and Others, 2026 LLBiz HC (PNH) 25
K.S. Multi Facility Services Pvt. Ltd. vs Jharkhand State Beverages Corporation, 2026 LLBiz HC (JHAR) 9
Deepak Shripat More Vs Udaysingh Harinarayansingh Rajpurohit & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 300
Hind Offshore Private Limited v. OCS Services (India) Private Limited, 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 301
New India Assurance Company Limited v. M/s Seapool Pvt. Ltd., 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 303
Carolyn Joyce Tadamala v. Royal City Developer Private Limited, 2026 LLBiz HC(APH) 40
Rajender Kumar v. National Highway Authority of India and Anr., 2026 LLBiz HC(HP) 17
Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur v. Chotelal, 2026 LLBiz HC(MP) 37
Malabar International Gold Designs Private Limited v. Anil Kumar K.V., 2026 LLBiz HC(KER) 76
S. Ramamoorthy v. M/s T. Jayaraman, 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 130
Veejay Lakshmi Engineering Works Limited v. GTN Enterprises Limited, 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 129
Supreme Court
Supreme Court Asks Delhi HC To Dispose Patanjali-Ashav Arbitration Dispute Over Ruchi Soya Deal
Case Title: PATANJALI AYURVED LIMITED AND ORS. Versus ASHAV ADVISORY LLP
Case Number: Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 17525/2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz SC 196
The Supreme Court recently asked the Delhi High Court to take up for disposal the pending arbitration dispute between Patanjali Ayurved Ltd and Ashav Advisory LLP over a share transaction linked to the acquisition of Ruchi Soya Industries.
A Bench of Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Alok Aradhe requested the High Court to decide the pending petitions at the next date of hearing, scheduled for July 28.
“We had earlier recorded in our order dated 07.01.2026 that Section 34 objections were listed for hearing on 11.02.2026. It appears that the matter could be taken up for one reason or the another. Mr. C.A. Sundaram, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner(s) submits that petition under Section 36 of the Act is also pending consideration before the High Court. We request the High Court to take up Section 34/36 petitions for disposal on the next date of hearing which is scheduled for 28.07.2026,” the bench observed.
Delhi High Court
Case Title : Pandrol Rahee Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. IRCON International Ltd.
Case Number : O.M.P. (COMM) 414/2023
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 518
The Delhi High Court on 20 May upheld an arbitral award rejecting Pandrol Rahee Technologies Pvt. Ltd.'s claim for additional payment from IRCON International Ltd. for supplying extra components for ballastless track fastening systems, holding that the contract remained a fixed-price “set-based” agreement despite variations in quantity.
Justice Avneesh Jhingan observed that, “if the argument is taken to its logical end, it would mean that upon variation, the contract would change from a set-based to a component-based contract, which the parties never contemplated.”
Arbitration Case-Management Orders Are Not Open To Section 34 Challenge: Delhi High Court
Case Title : Cinda Engineering and Construction Private Limited v. CY Engineering India Private Limited
Case Number : O.M.P. (COMM) 67/2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 506
The Delhi High Court on 12 May held that procedural and case-management directions passed in arbitral proceedings, including orders refusing amendment of pleadings or additional document production, do not amount to an “interim award” under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 unless they finally determine substantive rights between the parties.
Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar dismissed a petition filed by Cinda Engineering and Construction Private Limited challenging an arbitral tribunal order that had refused to permit amendment of pleadings and production of additional documents in an ongoing arbitration against CY Engineering India Private Limited. He observed:
“The legislative architecture underlying the expression “award”, whether final or interim, necessarily postulates an adjudicatory determination possessing the attributes of conclusiveness, finality and enforceability in respect of a substantive component of the lis between the parties. Mere procedural consequences, however significant in their practical effect, do not by themselves elevate an interlocutory order to the status of an interim award.”
Case Title: Sarvesh Security Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Institute of Human Behavior Resource and Allied Sciences
Case Number : O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 557/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 516
The Delhi High Court has extended an arbitrator's mandate after an arbitral award had already been pronounced, holding that an extension cannot be refused merely because it would eliminate a ground to challenge the award.
Justice Avneesh Jhingan observed, “Merely as the outcome of the arbitration proceedings was known to the parties and with extension of the mandate one of the ground to challenge award under Section 34 of the Act may not survive, cannot be the consideration for rejection of the prayer for extension more so, on court being satisfied that sufficient cause exists.”
Arbitral Tribunal Need Not Seek MSME Council Approval Before Passing Final Award: Delhi High Court
Case Title : Dewan and Sons and Ors Vs Harsh International
Case Number: O.M.P. (COMM) 237/2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 526
The Delhi High Court has held that the MSMED Act and the Arbitration and Conciliation Act do not envisage any intermediary mechanism requiring an arbitral institution to submit a recommendatory report to a Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council for approval or confirmation.
Once a dispute is referred by the Council under the MSMED Act, the arbitral institution can independently render a final arbitral award, the Court held.
Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar dismissed a challenge to an award passed through the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC) in an MSME payment dispute between M/s Harsh International and M/s Dewan and Sons.
“Neither the MSMED Act nor the provisions of the A&C Act envisage any intermediate or hybrid procedure whereby the arbitral institution merely renders a recommendatory report or opinion to the Council for eventual approval, confirmation, or pronouncement of an award by the Council itself No such statutory requirement, procedure, or supervisory mechanism can be culled out either from the language of Section 18(3) of the MSMED Act or from the scheme of the A&C Act," the Court said.
Case Title : Hazel Mercantile Ltd. v Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.
Case Number : O.M.P. (Comm) 36/2023 & I.A. 1770/2023
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 537
The Delhi High Court on 22 April upheld an arbitral award arising from a supply contract between Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOCL) and Hazel Mercantile Ltd, where the arbitrator had granted nominal damages of Rs. 25,000.
Justice Avneesh Jhingan held that a mere price difference does not, by itself, establish proof of loss and declined to interfere under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. He observed:
“The quantification of the nominal damages is a discretion exercised by the arbitrator in the facts and circumstances of the case calling for no interference under Section 34 of the Act.”
Case Title : Prem Lata Surekha v Chakradhari Surekha
Case Number: FAO(OS) (COMM) 70/2025 & CM APPL. 24573/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 535
The Delhi High Court, in a family partnership dispute, has held that timelines introduced under the amended arbitration law for passing arbitral awards would not apply since arbitration had first been invoked before the amendment came into force.
The 2015 amendment introduced a 12-month deadline for arbitral tribunals to make an award from the date they entered upon reference, extendable by six months with parties' consent.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Madhu Jain held, “Under such circumstances, the arbitration clause having been invoked prior to the Amendment Act, 2015 coming into existence, the time limits stipulated under Section 29A of the Act would not be applicable to the facts of this case.”
The court dismissed an appeal filed by Prem Lata Surekha challenging an arbitral award in favour of Chakradhari Surekha. It also imposed costs of Rs 1 lakh on her, noting that she had rejected reasonable proposals for amicable resolution and that her conduct was not bona fide.
Re-Filing Delays In Commercial Cases Must Be Treated As Seriously As Filing Delays: Delhi High Court
Case Title: DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs INTEGRATED TECHNO SYSTEMS PVT LTD
Case Number: CM APPLs. 52264/2025, 52265/2025 & 52266/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 536
The Delhi High Court has dismissed an appeal by the Delhi Development Authority against a Commercial Court judgment upholding an arbitral award, refusing to condone delays in filing and re-filing the matter.
A Division Bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla underscored the need for strict adherence to timelines in commercial disputes arising from arbitral proceedings.
“It is also settled that, in commercial matters, delay in re-filing has also to be treated with nearly with same seriousness as delay in filing.” , It noted.
The Court also reiterated that administrative lethargy by government bodies cannot justify condonation of delay.
“Keeping in mind the standards laid down by the Supreme Court in the judgements cited supra, we regret that we are unable to regard the explanation as sufficient to condone the delay in filing the appeal.”It added.
Case Title : M/s Gowra Petrochem Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s Alfa Chem & Ors.
Case Number: OMP (ENF.) (COMM.) 215/2019
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 531
The Delhi High Court has refused to enforce an arbitral award, holding that the absence of a challenge to the award under Arbitration Act does not automatically make it enforceable if it is void for lack of jurisdiction.
Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar passed the ruling.
“In the present case, the position regarding unilateral appointment of the learned Sole Arbitrator is not even disputed by the Decree Holder. Equally undisputed is the absence of any express waiver in writing, as contemplated under the proviso to Section 12(5) of the A&C Act. Once the very constitution of the Arbitral Tribunal stands vitiated by reason of such unilateral appointment, the resultant Arbitral Award cannot be regarded as a legally enforceable adjudication in the eyes of law," the Court observed.
Arbitration Is Founded On Party Autonomy; Tribunal Bound By Contract: Delhi High Court
Case Title: MMTC Limited v. M/s Knowledge Infrastructure & Anr.
Case Number: FAO(OS)(COMM) 109/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 528
The Delhi High Court has set aside a Single Judge order that upheld an arbitral award directing MMTC to release ₹2.21 crore to Knowledge Infrastructure, holding that the arbitral tribunal ignored the express terms of the parties' contract
A Division Bench of Justice Anil Kshetrapal and Justice Amit Mahajan ruled, “The Tripartite Agreement does not stipulate that the Appellant must first discharge liabilities attributable to Respondent No.1 and thereafter seek reimbursement through a separate indemnificatory mechanism. Thus, such an interpretation by the SB travels beyond the four corners of the Agreement.”
The Court also underscored that “arbitration proceedings are founded upon party autonomy” and that the arbitral tribunal, “being a creature of the contract, remains bound by the allocation of rights and liabilities consciously agreed upon between the parties.”
Calcutta High Court
Case Title: The Asia Health Care Development Private Limited v. State of West Bengal & Others
Case Number: WPA 17068 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 126
The Calcutta High Court has recently held that pending arbitration over a lease dispute does not by itself prevent public authorities from initiating eviction proceedings under the West Bengal Public Land (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act against an alleged unauthorised occupant of public land.
Justice Om Narayan Rai, however, set aside the impugned eviction notice after finding that the statutory authority had acted with a prejudged and influenced mind.
Explaining why the pending arbitration did not automatically bar the statutory proceedings, the Court said:
“The mere existence of that pending jurisdictional inquiry before the arbitrator does not strip the Collector of his separate statutory authority to issue a show-cause notice under Section 3 of the 1962 Act. In any case estoppel would apply only if the arbitral remedy would be validly available for resolution of the dispute in question.”
Case Title : THE PEERLESS GENERAL FINANCE AND INVESTMENT COMPANY LIMITED VERSUS GANGULY HOME SEARCH PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANR
Case Number: AP-COM 69 OF 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 128
The Calcutta High Court on 19 May held that where a series of agreements form part of a single, continuous commercial transaction, an arbitration clause in the original agreement survives in subsequent arrangements unless the later agreement clearly and unambiguously shows an intention to abandon arbitration.
Justice Gaurang Kanth allowed a Section 11 petition filed by The Peerless General Finance and Investment Company Ltd and appointed former Judge of the Calcutta High Court, Justice Indra Prasanna Mukerji, as sole arbitrator in disputes arising out of a series of agreements with Ganguly Home Search Pvt Ltd relating to a real-estate project. The Single-Judge Bench held:
“On the question of the survival of the arbitration clause, this Court is of the considered view that where a series of agreements form part of a single, integrated, and continuing commercial transaction, and where the earlier agreements contain a broad arbitration clause covering all disputes and differences arising in connection with the said transaction, the said arbitration clause does not get extinguished merely by reason of execution of a subsequent agreement which is silent on the point, unless there is a clear, express, and unambiguous provision in the subsequent agreement indicating that the parties intended to abandon and give up the right to arbitrate.”
Dispute Over Partnership Deed Validity Cannot Defeat Arbitration Agreement: Calcutta High Court
Case Title: SMT. JULI BHAGAT VERSUS SRI ALOK BHAGAT AND ORS.
Case Number : AP-COM 907 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 129
The Calcutta High Court on 18 May held that a party cannot defeat an arbitration agreement merely by disputing the validity or genuineness of partnership deeds containing the arbitration clause. It observed that allowing such a challenge at the referral stage would undermine the doctrine of Kompetenz-Kompetenz under Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
Justice Gaurang Kanth allowed a Section 11 petition filed by Juli Bhagat and appointed Advocate Chayan Gupta as sole arbitrator to adjudicate disputes arising from partnership deeds executed with Alok Bhagat and other family members concerning management of hotel properties of Late Arvind Bhagat. He observed:
“It would be a manifest incongruity to hold that namely because a party disputes the validity of the deed containing the arbitration clause, the Court must therefore refuse to refer the dispute to arbitration. Such an approach would effectively enable a party to defeat the arbitration agreement merely by raising a challenge to the underlying document, which is precisely what the doctrine of Kompetenz-Kompetenz, as enshrined in Section 16 of the Act, seeks to prevent.”
Case Title: M/s Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited v. Sayan Goswami and Anr.
Case Number : EC-COM 248 of 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 120
The Calcutta High Court has refused to enforce an ex parte arbitral award in favour of Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Ltd., holding that a lender cannot indirectly secure the appointment of a sole arbitrator through an arbitral institution of its own choosing when the borrowers have neither consented to the process nor participated in it.
Justice Gaurang Kanth held, “The law does not permit such a stratagem. The prohibition engrafted by Section 12(5) and the judicial decisions thereunder is directed not merely at the formal act of appointing an arbitrator, but at the substance of the process, the unilateral control by an interested party over the constitution of the tribunal that is to adjudicate its own claims. Whether that control is exercised directly through a personal appointment, or indirectly through the unilateral invocation of an institutional mechanism, the vices of partiality, inequality and conflict of interest are identical. The form cannot save what the substance condemns"
Case Title : IDFC First Bank Limited and Another v. Shyamsundar Distributor and Another
Case Number : FMA 1389 of 2025 with IA No. CAN 1 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 122
The Calcutta High Court has dismissed IDFC First Bank Limited's appeal against a trial court order that refused to send a loan dispute to arbitration and struck off the bank's defence for failing to act within time.
A division bench of Justice Debangsu Basak and Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi upheld the order, finding that the bank had waited nearly 11 months after entering appearance in the suit before seeking arbitration.
“In the case at hand, as noted above, the appellant/defendant came up with an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 after about 11 months of its first appearance in the suit which came to be rejected by the learned Trial Court on the ground that the same was filed much after the expiry of the time prescribed for putting in the statement of defence,” the bench observed.
“Therefore, in view of the discussions made hereinabove, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned order. The same is hereby affirmed. Accordingly, the instant appeal being FMA 1389 of 2025 is hereby dismissed,” it added.
Delay In Challenging Arbitral Award Not Condoned When Party Lacks Due Diligence: Calcutta High Court
Case Title : Kamlesh Kumar Agarwala v. The Estate of Manjan Devi Patni, represented by Nirmal Kumar Jain
Case Number: APO 27 of 2021 with AP 74 of 2019
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 132
The Calcutta High Court on 20 May held that a party cannot invoke Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to save a delayed challenge to an arbitral award after pursuing proceedings before the wrong forum without due diligence and bona fide conduct.
A Division Bench of Justices Debangsu Basak and Md. Shabbar Rashidi also held that once the High Court entertains an application under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, exclusive jurisdiction thereafter vests in it for all subsequent arbitral proceedings, including a challenge to the award and dismissed an appeal filed by Kamlesh Kumar Agarwala. It observed:
“In order to avail the benefits under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, the party claiming benefits has to establish that there was observance of due diligence on the part of such party in pursuing the proceedings in the wrong forum.”
Case Title : PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, G. T. A. DARJEELING Vs M/S. MOHINDRA TUBES LIMITED
Case Number : AP-COM 382 OF 2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 121
The Calcutta High Court on 13 May held that non-compliance with the mandatory pre-deposit requirement under Section 19 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 does not, by itself, bar restoration of a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
A Bench comprising Justice Gaurang Kanth allowed a restoration application filed by the Public Health Engineering Department, Gorkhaland Territorial Administration and restored its Section 34 petition challenging an MSME Facilitation Council award in favour of Mohindra Tubes Ltd. He held:
“The proposition that non-compliance with Section 19 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 ipso facto bars the entertainment or allowing of a Restoration Application is neither supported by the plain text of the statute, nor by any binding or persuasive judicial authority placed before this Court. This Court accordingly declines to accept the said proposition.”
Case Title : Kessels Engineering Works Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Neo Metalicks Limited
Case Number: AP-COM/245/2024, IA No: GA/1/2022
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 136
The Calcutta High Court has set aside an arbitral award in favour of Neo Metaliks Limited, holding that a dissenting arbitrator cannot be excluded from deliberations and given the majority award only after it has been finalised.
Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya passed the ruling while allowing Kessels Engineering Works Pvt Ltd's challenge to the award and staying operation of the judgment for 30 days.
Justice Bhattacharyya observed, “Deliberation between the co-arbitrators in a multi-member Arbitral Tribunal is an essential ingredient of party autonomy, since the parties agree upon and submit to adjudication by all the members and not by any one or some of them. Such basic tenet goes for a toss if one of the Arbitrators is kept out of the loop by the others while preparing the award.”
The court added, “Although a dissenting Arbitrator has a right to dissent, such dissent has to be an informed decision and not a post facto adjudication after the majority award is finalized, delivered and only then handed over to him, without prior consultation.”
Punjab & Haryana High Court
Case Title : Kuldeep Singh and Another v. Union of India and Others
Case Number: CWP No. 38070 of 2025 (O&M)
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (PNH) 25
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that denying landowners whose compensation is enhanced in arbitration under the National Highways Act the same interest benefits available to similarly placed landowners would be discriminatory and violative of Article 14.
Justice Harkesh Manuja held, “In the present case, the learned Arbitrator, by denying parity to identically placed landowners even though only with regard to the interest component of the compensation, has acted arbitrarily and in breach of Article 14, thereby offending the fundamental principles of fair procedure.”
Drawing on the Supreme Court's ruling in Union of India v. Tarsem Singh, the High Court said landowners whose property is acquired for national highway projects cannot be denied compensation benefits that are available to others in similar acquisition cases. It emphasised that compensation is not limited to the base amount and solatium but also covers interest for delayed payment.
Jharkhand High Court
Jharkhand High Court Pulls Up JSBC for Seeking Adjournment In Arbitration Matter Over Transfer of MD
Case Title: K.S. MULTI FACILITY SERVICES PVT LTD vs JHARKHAND STATE BEVERAGES CORPORATION
Case Number: Arbitration Application No. 1 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (JHAR) 9
The Jharkhand High Court recently pulled up Jharkhand State Beverages Corporation for seeking a second adjournment in an arbitration matter on the ground that its managing director had been transferred.
The court observed that the corporation was “bent upon delaying the matter.” It then appointed former Jharkhand High Court judge Justice N.N. Tiwari as sole arbitrator in its dispute with K.S. Multi Facility Services Private Limited.
Chief Justice M.S. Sonak observed that the corporation's reasons for seeking adjournment were unconvincing. He noted that an earlier adjournment had been granted subject to payment of Rs. 10,000 in costs.
“On the ground that the Managing Director is not available or is transferred, this is the second time that adjournment is applied for, even though, earlier adjournment was granted, subject to payment of cost of Rs. 10,000/-. Surprisingly, even the costs have not been paid. The transfer of the Managing Director can hardly be a ground for the respondent-Corporation not to pay the cost of Rs. 10,000/-. This is a matter where the respondent is bent upon delaying the matter.”, It noted.
Arbitral Tribunal's Refusal To Implead Proposed Parties Is Appealable: Bombay High Court
Case Title : Deepak Shripat More Vs Udaysingh Harinarayansingh Rajpurohit & Ors
Case Number : ARBITRATION PETITION (L) NO.40041 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 300
The Bombay High Court has held that where an arbitral tribunal finds it lacks jurisdiction over persons sought to be added to arbitration proceedings, such a decision can be challenged, though it declined to interfere with such a refusal in a dispute between two partners in a property development firm.
Justice Somashekar Sundaresan held that such intervention may be necessary because, “if the arbitration proceedings are conducted entirely without the involvement of someone who is later found, after the award is passed, to be a veritable party, the parties would be put to severe hardship with the entire arbitral proceedings being found to have been conducted without the necessary parties' involvement.”
Non-Signatory Group Companies Cannot Be Automatically Impleaded In Arbitration: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Hind Offshore Private Limited v. OCS Services (India) Private Limited
Case Number : Commercial Arbitration Petition (L) No. 41270 of 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 301
The Bombay High Court has recently held that every group company connected to a commercial transaction cannot automatically be dragged into arbitration just because it belongs to the same corporate group as a signatory party or played some role in the underlying transaction.
Explaining the scope of the “group of companies” doctrine, Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan held, “What becomes clear is that whether a non-signatory is a veritable party to the arbitration agreement is the subject matter of assessment. The doctrine does not relate to the underlying agreement and the transactions contracted therein, but to the arbitration agreement. The doctrine is not that every group company that had any role at all to play must be subjected to arbitration proceedings. The enquiry is always meant to be fact-specific. In any operating contract, there could be multiple other parties with which one of the contracting parties has a contract. They would not become liable to action in any arbitration that a group company has with any third party.”
Case Title: New India Assurance Company Limited v M/s Seapool Pvt Ltd
Case Number : Commercial Arbitration Petition (L) No. 6069 of 2023
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 303
The Bombay High Court has recently upheld an arbitral award rejecting an insurer's reliance on an undisclosed expert opinion used to reduce an insured's claim, holding that the challenge essentially sought a reappreciation of evidence.
Justice Gauri Godse held the arbitral tribunal was justified in discarding the insurer's expert report. “ The expert opinion's report is also rightly not accepted by the Tribunal. It is held that the expert was appointed without any intimation to the claimant. Although the Insurance Company contended that the expert was appointed on the aspect of depreciation, the Tribunal, on an appreciation of the pleadings and evidence, held that the expert had given an opinion not only on depreciation but also on improvement, salvage, and other technical factors. Nothing is shown in this petition that the appointment of an expert by the Insurance company is permissible for independently assessing the loss and discarding the surveyor's assessment, which is as per the applicable rules.”
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case Title : Carolyn Joyce Tadamala v. Royal City Developer Private Limited
Case Number COMCA No. 27 of 2025
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC(APH) 40
The Andhra Pradesh High Court on 7 May held that a mere stipulation in an arbitration agreement that proceedings “shall be held” at Hyderabad does not, by itself, make Hyderabad the juridical seat of arbitration, especially where the agreement separately confers exclusive jurisdiction on civil courts in East Godavari District.
A Division Bench of Justices Ravi Nath Tilhari and Balaji Medamalli allowed a Commercial Court Appeal filed by Carolyn Joyce Tadamala against Royal City Developer Private Limited and set aside the Commercial Court order dated 1 December 2025 dismissing her Section 9 petition for want of territorial jurisdiction. It observed:
“Mere mentioning of a place of arbitration would not amount to fixing of the seat of arbitration, thereby conferring jurisdiction upon the courts of that place and Clauses 57 and 58 of the DAGPA must be conjointly read to arrive and draw the intention of the parties to the agreement while entering into such an agreement. Thus, the intention is very clear that the arbitration proceedings will be taken place at Hyderabad where the same has to be treated as a place/venue of arbitration and the same cannot be equated or elevated to the status of seat of arbitration.”
Himachal Pradesh High Court
Case Title : Rajender Kumar v. National Highway Authority of India and Anr
Case Number: Arbitration Case No. 216 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(HP) 17
The Himachal Pradesh High Court on 20 May held that an application under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking extension of time is maintainable even after expiry of the arbitral mandate, but such extension can be granted only on proof of “sufficient cause”, consistent with the legislative objective of expeditious arbitral resolution.
A Bench of Justice Virender Singh dismissed a plea filed by landowner Rajender Kumar seeking extension of time to complete arbitral proceedings arising from acquisition of land for widening of National Highway-21. He held:
“....if the application is allowed, merely on the asking of the party, then, there would be no end to the litigation and the object of Section 29A of the Act would be defeated by allowing the application, which is filed after a long gap of time.”
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Madhya Pradesh High Court Holds MPIR Execution Not Barred by Limitation, Reads Down Rule 48-A
Case Title: Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur v Chotelal
Case Number : Misc. Petition No. 2501 Of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(MP) 37
The Jabalpur Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court on 21 April held that execution proceedings under the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Relations Act, 1960 (MPIR Act) are not barred by limitation even when initiated after more than a decade of the award.
Justice Vivek Jain further read down Rule 48-A of the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Relations Rules, 1961, holding that it cannot override Section 108 of the Act by prescribing a limitation period for execution and dismissed a petition filed by the Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur. He held:
“The substantive Act, that is the Act of 1960 declares that the recovery of money shall be executed as if it was a fine imposed by a criminal court under CRPC, for which there is no limitation prescribed for such recovery. On the contrary, the rule applies Code of Civil Procedure to such execution of recoveries and also applies a limitation period which is counter to the substantive provisions of the parent Act which does not provide any limitation for execution either in Section 108 or anywhere else in the act. Even the procedure for recovery as per Section 108 shall be as per Section 421 of Cr.P.C. whereas the Rule 48-A provides a totally different mode by adopting Code of Civil Procedure for that purpose. Therefore the Rule 48-A is in direct conflict with Section of the Act.”
Kerala High Court
Case Title : Malabar International Gold Designs Private Limited v. Anil Kumar K.V
Case Number : AR No. 263 of 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(KER) 76
The Kerala High Court has recently referred to arbitration a dispute between three Malabar Group companies and certain shareholders over allegations that the shareholders breached non-compete provisions in the companies' Articles of Association by becoming involved in rival jewellery businesses.
Justice S Manu was dealing with petitions filed by Malabar International Gold Designs Private Limited, Luster Gold Palace (India) Private Limited and Malabar Gold Supermarket (Kannur) Private Limited seeking appointment of an arbitrator.
The Court said it would not examine the merits of the shareholders' objections at this stage, as doing so would exceed the limited scope of the proceedings.
“If this Court ventures to address such contentions on merits, it may amount to transgression of the constricted jurisdiction under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996. I, therefore, refrain from making any observations on the merits of the contentions of both sides except rejecting the contention of the respondents that there is no binding arbitration agreement,” it said.
Madras High Court
Madras High Court Says No Cheque Bounce Prosecution If Underlying Arbitral Award Was Challenged
Case Title : S. Ramamoorthy v. M/s. T. Jayaraman
Case Number : Crl.O.P.No.3562 of 2023
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 130
The Madras High Court has recently quashed cheque bounce proceedings against a builder after finding that he had challenged the arbitral award cited as the basis of the alleged liability before the cheque was allegedly issued.
Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan said, “Even before the date of issuance of the cheque i.e. 15.07.2019, the accused challenged the very arbitration award before this Court as early as on 11.02.2019 in Arb.OP.Nos.381 and 382 of 2019. Therefore, the accused would not have issued the cheque dated 15.07.2019 to discharge his partial liability towards the award passed against him. Subsequently, the very award itself was set aside by this Court by order dated 29.04.2024 in Arb.OP.Nos.381 and 382 of 2019. In overall circumstances, the entire initiation of proceedings under Section 138 of NI Act is nothing but clear abuse of process of law and it cannot be sustained.”
Private Arbitration Cannot Override Statutory Labour Adjudication: Madras High Court
Case Title : Veejay Lakshmi Engineering Works Limited v. GTN Enterprises Limited
Case Number : CMA No. 232 of 2024
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 129
The Madras High Court has recently held that statutory labour adjudication cannot be displaced by private contractual arbitration where statutory worker rights are involved.
A Division Bench of Justice P Velmurugan and Justice K Govindarajan Thilakavadi observed, “While the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 governs voluntary arbitration, the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is a specialized social legislation designed to protect workers, and its mandatory procedures cannot be over ridden by private agreements.”
The bench further observed, “Moreover, the industrial disputes act, 1947 is a beneficial legislation that takes precedents when contractual arbitration is used to override statutory rights. In other words, a decision from a labour Court or Industrial Tribunal is mandatory and takes precedents, as it operates under statutory authority to maintain industrial peace, which is superior to private contract disputes.”