LiveLawBiz Arbitration Cases Weekly Digest: September 7 - September 12, 2026
NOMINAL INDEX
Kirloskar Brothers Limited v. Atul Chandrakant Kirloskar & Ors., 2026 LLBiz SC 305
National Skill Development Corporation v. Surya Wires Private Limited & Ors., 2026 LLBiz SC 302
Shri Krishan Grit Co. v. Continental Engineering Corporation, 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 953
Eco Green Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. v. Vikartan Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 951
Flemingo (DFS) Private Limited v. Airports Authority of India, 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 938
UGRO Capital Limited v. TruCap Finance Limited & Anr., 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 936
Faisal Ahmed v. Asian Hotels North Ltd. & Anr., 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 935
Limited Liability Company “LTB” v. Shri Vaibhavi Logistics & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 502
JSW Steel Ltd. v. Delta Iron & Steel Co. Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 504
Vikas Babulal Khandelwal v. Shree Krishna Sai Development Corporation & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 496
The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. M/s. Atul Raj Builders Pvt. Ltd., 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 492
The Executive Engineer, PWD v. M/s. Trimurti Construction & Anr., 2026 LLBiz HC(RAJ) 42
National Highways Authority of India v. C. Pramod, 2026 LLBiz HC(KAR) 155
KLM Axiva Finvest Limited v. Bijitha Shajan & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC(KER) 179
Antony Wazhson & Anr. v. Mayyanad Regional Co-operative Bank No. 94 & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC(KER) 178
Bijay Saha @ Bijoy Saha v. Ajit Saha & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC(CAL) 214
Steel Authority of India Limited v. M/s. Eastern Minerals and Trading Agency, 2026 LLBiz HC(CAL) 212
Reliance Jute Mills (International) Limited v. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, 2026 LLBiz HC(CAL) 209
Susajja JV Anand LLP v. Bhopal Municipal Corporation, 2026 LLBiz HC(MP) 63
Raj Karan Singh v. Union of India & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC (PAT) 25
Ansaldo Energia S.P.A. & Anr. v. M/s. Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd., 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 261
Supreme Court
Supreme Court Upholds Bombay HC Order Referring Kirloskar Family Dispute To Arbitration
Case Title : KIRLOSKAR BROTHERS LIMITED vs ATUL CHANDRAKANT KIRLOSKAR & ORS.
Case Number : SLP (CIVIL) NO. 8020 OF 2021
Citation : 2026 LLBiz SC 305
The Supreme Court has upheld the Bombay High Court's decision to refer to arbitration a dispute between Kirloskar Brothers Limited and members of the Kirloskar family arising from a Deed of Family Settlement dated September 11, 2009 (DFS).
The DFS sought to formalise the separation of businesses and group companies among different branches of the family with Clause 20 containing an arbitration agreement.
A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana observed the High Court committed no error in leaving these issues open for determination under Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
"We are, therefore, of the view that the High Court committed no error in declining to render a final finding on these questions at the Section 8 stage and in leaving them open for determination by the Arbitral Tribunal under Section 16 of the 1996 Act. In such circumstances, we find no ground warranting interference with the impugned judgment. The instant appeals are accordingly disposed of.", the Court said.
Case Title : National Skill Development Corporation v. Surya Wires Private Limited & Ors.
Case Number : Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 10030 of 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz SC 302
The Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled that an arbitration clause in a loan agreement can bind a personal guarantor even where the guarantee contains no separate arbitration clause.
This applies where the guarantee is expressly integrated into the loan agreement as part of the same composite transaction.
Allowing an appeal by the National Skill Development Corporation (NSDC) against Surya Wires Private Limited and others, the Court set aside the Delhi High Court's judgment upholding the deletion of Surya Wires' Managing Director from the arbitral proceedings.
The appeal before the Supreme Court was confined to the Managing Director, who had executed the Personal Guarantees in his individual capacity. The Court held that he was bound to submit to arbitration as guarantor.
A Division Bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe observed:
“The phrase 'as if the provisions thereof were set out herein in extension' operates as a deeming fiction internal to the contract, binding every facility agreement, including the Personal Guarantee, within the same legal and arbitral framework as the Loan Agreement. The Personal Guarantees do not, therefore, stand apart from the Loan Agreements, and are woven into their very fabric.”
The Court further observed, “A guarantee so defined and so integrated cannot be severed, for purposes of dispute resolution alone, from the very Clause 11.2 that governs disputes touching the rights and obligations arising under that Agreement, while remaining tethered to it for every other purpose, including the extent of liability.”
Delhi High Court
MSME Registration Cannot Revive Abandoned Arbitration Claims: Delhi High Court
Case Title : Shri Krishan Grit Co. v. Continental Engineering Corporation
Case Number : ARB. A. (COMM) 30/2024 & I.A. 29603/2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 953
The Delhi High Court has ruled that a supplier cannot revive claims abandoned in an earlier arbitration merely by subsequently obtaining registration under the Micro, Small, and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006.
Justice Tushar Rao Gedela observed that a party that did not challenge the termination of the earlier arbitration cannot use subsequent MSME registration to reopen the same claims.
The court held, “Having not availed the same, in the opinion of this Court, a party cannot be permitted to re-open such abandoned claims by mere registration under the MSME Act, 2006, subsequently.”
Delhi High Court Says Failed Conciliation Talks Cannot Be Used To Decide Arbitration Claims
Case Title : Eco Green Buildtech Pvt Ltd v. Vikartan Infrastructure Pvt Ltd
Case Number : O.M.P. (COMM) 293/2023 & I.A. 14489/2023
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 951
The Delhi High Court has ruled that material recorded during unsuccessful conciliation cannot later be relied upon to decide the same dispute in arbitration.
Justice Avneesh Jhingan observed that the confidentiality of such proceedings must continue even after a settlement attempt fails.
“The proceedings during conciliation cannot be considered and relied upon in case the arbitration of dispute is necessitated. The proceedings during conciliation are different but when an issue is contested equal opportunity is to be provided to both the parties to present their case,” the court observed.
It added that when an issue remains contested, both parties must be given an equal opportunity to present their case.
The ruling came in a challenge by Eco Green Buildtech Pvt Ltd against arbitral awards in its dispute with Vikartan Infrastructure Pvt Ltd over construction of the Sikka Kamya Greens project in Sector 10, Greater Noida. The court ultimately set aside both the February 28, 2023 award and March 27, 2023 additional award.
Case Title : Flemingo (DFS) Private Limited v. Airports Authority of India
Case Number : ARB.P. 853/2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 938
The Delhi High Court on 7 September referred a dispute between Flemingo (DFS) Private Limited and the Airports Authority of India (AAI) concerning the operation of duty-free shops at Amritsar Airport to arbitration.
Justice Jasmeet Singh appointed Justice Shalinder Kaur (Retd.) as the sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes, holding that Flemingo's earlier communications did not amount to invocation of arbitration and that its petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was within limitation. The Bench observed:
“In the present case, the notices, which are allegedly the notices invoking arbitration, when read in totality, show that the petitioner is seeking resolution of its grievances and specifically states that in the event the grievances of the petitioner remain unresolved, the petitioner will resort to arbitration and had not invoked Arbitration at that point. Thus, the said notices cannot be construed as notices invoking Arbitration and are merely a communication that enumerates the intention of the petitioner to amicably solve the dispute without resorting to the arbitral clause as envisaged in the Agreement.The notices clearly show that there was no quantification or demand by the petitioner or any rejection of claim by the respondent.”
Delhi High Court Restrains TruCap Finance From Disposing Assets Worth Rs. 1.70 Crore
Case Title : UGRO Capital Limited v. TruCap Finance Limited & Anr.
Case Number : O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 371/2026 & I.A. 23494/2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 936
The Delhi High Court on 1 September restrained TruCap Finance Limited from creating third-party rights or encumbrances over, or disposing of, assets worth up to Rs. 1.70 crore in a dispute with UGRO Capital Limited.
Justice Om Prakash Shukla also appointed Advocate Manisha Suri as the sole arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute arising from a co-lending arrangement between the two non-banking financial companies. The Bench observed:
“Having heard learned Senior counsel for the Petitioner and perused the petition along with the documents annexed thereto, this Court is satisfied that the balance of convenience lies in favour of the Petitioner, and that unless the Petitioner is protected by way of interim measures, the Petitioner would be exposed to irreparable harm inasmuch as any Award that may be passed in the intended arbitration would be reduced to a paper decree.”
Legal Heir Can Challenge Arbitral Award Despite Not Participating In Proceedings: Delhi High Court
Case Title : Faisal Ahmed v. Asian Hotels North Ltd & Anr.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 10751/2026 & CM APPL. 49847/2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 935
The Delhi High Court has held that a legal representative of a deceased party can challenge an arbitral award even if the legal representative did not participate in the arbitration.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma was dealing with a plea by Faisal Ahmed, one of the nine legal heirs of late Sultan Ahmed, who sought to participate in arbitration proceedings concerning his father's rights in a shop at the Hyatt Regency Shopping Arcade, New Delhi.
The court declined to stop the arbitration, which had already reached the stage of final arguments, but held that Faisal and the other legal heirs would have a remedy against the eventual award.
Explaining why Faisal could not be treated as remediless merely because he had not participated in the arbitration, the court relied on the statutory scheme governing legal representatives of deceased parties. It observed that an award can bind persons claiming under a deceased party and that the right to challenge such an award must also be available to them.
“The said remedy would, therefore, also be available to the petitioner and to the other legal heirs of late Sh. Sultan Ahmed. Any grievance regarding want of notice or opportunity to present their case, as well as any other ground available under Section 34 of the A&C Act, can accordingly be raised at the appropriate stage,” Justice Sharma observed.
Bombay High Court
Interim Return Of Property Can Support Arbitration Without Granting Final Relief: Bombay High Court
Case Title : Limited Liability Company “LTB" vs Shri Vaibhavi Logistics & Ors
Case Number : COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION PETITION (L) NO.24421 OF 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 502
The Bombay High Court on 27 August held that directing the return of property as an interim measure does not amount to granting final relief where the direction is intended to protect and support arbitral proceedings.
Justice Amit Borkar partly allowed a petition filed by Limited Liability Company “LTB” seeking interim protection in respect of its tank containers and directed their release, while leaving the parties' substantive claims open for appropriate proceedings. He held:
“I do not accept the submission that directing return of the tanks would amount to granting final relief. Section 9 relief is intended to support the arbitration and is not meant to finally decide the entire dispute. But an interim direction for return or protection of property does not, for that reason, become a final order.”
IBC Resolution Ends Pre-Resolution Claims, Arbitration Cannot Continue: Bombay High Court
Case Title : JSW Steel Ltd vs Delta Iron & Steel Co. Pvt. Ltd. & Ors
Case Number : INTERIM APPLICATION NO.542 OF 2019 IN COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION PETITION NO.1558 OF 2019
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 504
The Bombay High Court has recently held that once a corporate debtor is resolved under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, there is no residual cause of action from a pre-resolution claim that can be pursued through arbitration or Section 9 proceedings.
Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan observed that the insolvency resolution process brings such claims to an end, whether the creditor recovers some, none or all of the amount claimed.
The court held, “That a corporate debtor who is resolved under the IBC starts with a clean slate, is now well declared in numerous judgements. Causes of action against the corporate debtor prior to resolution would come to an end with the assessment and determination of claims under the resolution process. A creditor may recover some or none or all of the debt claimed from and owed to it by the corporate debtor. Regardless of how much is recovered, there would be no residual cause of action to agitate. Arbitration agreements governing such discharged causes of action would not be available to give any continued life to the Section 9 jurisdiction.”
Case Title : Vikas Babulal Khandelwal v. Shree Krishna Sai Development Corporation & Ors.
Case Number : Commercial Arbitration Petition (L) No. 25100 of 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 496
The Bombay High Court has held that an authority letter allowing a partner to “deal” with partnership property cannot by itself be treated as a blanket power to sell or transfer the firm's immovable properties.
The court observed that the authority letters gave the partner “authority of some substance”, but did not confer an unrestricted power to sell or transfer the firm's immovable properties.
Justice Amit Borkar, while deciding a plea under the Arbitration Act seeking interim relief observed:
“Depending upon the transaction, this expression may cover documents required for completing the transaction. But it cannot be treated as giving a blanket power to sell or transfer all properties of the Firm. The expression has to be understood with reference to the property identified in the Authority Letter, the transaction contemplated and the purpose for which the authority was given. Its scope cannot be enlarged beyond what the document, when read as a whole, reasonably permits.”
Case Title : The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. M/s. Atul Raj Builders Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : Arbitration Petition No. 264 of 1998
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 492
The Bombay High Court has reiterated that the limitation for challenging an arbitral award under the Arbitration Act, 1940, need not remain paused until formal court notice is issued if the party is otherwise aware of the award.
Relying on apex court rulings, the court ruled,
“The precise form of what constitutes as a 'notice' of filing the Award is unspecified. However, interpreted reasonably, what must be required is that the parties come to know about the existence of the Award so that any objections to it may be filed. What appears from the usage of the word 'notice' is that the parties merely reach a state of awareness about the Award and plan their next steps accordingly, and not the imposition of another procedural step. If the literal interpretation is taken and limitation is paused until a formal notice is issued by the Court, it would allow a party otherwise aware of the Award to sit over the Award and delay filing objections. This would undercut the speedy intent governing arbitration," the court ruled.
Rajasthan High Court
Case Title : The Executive Engineer, PWD v. M/s. Trimurti Construction & Anr.
Case Number : D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1905/2023
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(RAJ) 42
The Rajasthan High Court has reiterated that an arbitral award based solely on pleadings, without framing issues concerning serious disputed facts or considering evidence, violates the principles of natural justice.
It further held that such an award is against the public policy of India under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Relying on several apex court precedents, the court ruled,
“Thus, the above Legal precedents make it clear that an arbitral award issued without properly identifying key issues of serious disputed facts—and without evidence or a fair hearing—violates natural justice. When a decision is based solely on pleadings, especially where facts remain contested, it breaches fundamental principles of justice," the court ruled.
The bench of Dr. Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Praveer Bhatnagar further held that an arbitral award made contrary to the core procedures and principles of natural justice would be against the public policy of India under Section 34 of the Act.
Karnataka High Court
30-Day Limit For Correcting Award Is Inflexible, Applies To NH Act Arbitration: Karnataka High Court
Case Title : NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA vs C. PRAMOD
Case Number : MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3756 OF 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 155
The Karnataka High Court has held that the 30-day limit for seeking correction or interpretation of an arbitral award cannot be extended, and a belated application cannot revive the time limit for challenging the award, including in arbitrations under the National Highways Act, 1956.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice K.S. Hemalekha dismissed an appeal filed by the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) against the 13 February 2026 order of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural, which had dismissed NHAI's Section 34 petition and confirmed the arbitral award. The judges held:
“We do not find any basis for the said contention. Section 3G(6) of the NH Act expressly provides that the provisions of the A&C Act would apply to arbitration under the NH Act, subject to the provisions of the NH Act. There is no provision under the NH Act, which would exclude the time period stipulated under Section 33 of the A&C Act.”
Kerala High Court
Case Title KLM Axiva Finvest Limited v. Bijitha Shajan & Ors
Case Number A.R. No. 53 of 2026
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC(KER) 179
The Kerala High Court has ruled that the time spent in an earlier arbitration cannot be excluded from the limitation period merely because an execution court later finds that the resulting arbitral award is unenforceable or a nullity.
Section 43(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, provides for exclusion of the period between the commencement of an arbitration and the date on which a court sets aside the arbitral award while calculating the limitation period for subsequent proceedings, including a fresh arbitration, concerning the same dispute.
Justice S. Manu held that this exclusion applies only when a court actually orders that the award be set aside under Sections 34 or 37 of the Act.
An execution court's finding that an award is unenforceable or a nullity cannot be treated as an order setting aside the award.
“On a literal reading, the phrase 'an arbitral award be set aside' used in sub-section (4) of Section 43 does not allow for the inclusion of any other circumstance within the purview of the clause,” the court observed.
The court further held that Section 43(4) “would apply only when the Court orders that an arbitral award be set aside under Section 34 or Section 37 of the Act."
An execution court's order holding an award unenforceable or a nullity “cannot be equated with an order passed under Section 34 or Section 37 of the Act.”
Case Title : Antony Wazhson & Anr. v. Mayyanad Regional Co-operative Bank No.94 & Ors.
Case Number : WP(C) No. 34660 of 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(KER) 178
The Kerala High Court has held that a co-operative society's failure to produce a Managing Committee resolution before the Arbitrator does not invalidate arbitration proceedings initiated by the society.
The court ruled that the requirement under Rule 67(2) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969, is directory and not mandatory
“However, I am of the opinion that, though the word 'shall' is used in Rule 67(2) of the 1969 Rules, the provision cannot be construed as mandatory, and it can only be held to be directory. Thus, the failure to produce a resolution before the Arbitrator cannot be fatal to the arbitration proceedings initiated by the Society. It is settled law that the use of the word 'shall'' in a statutory provision does not by itself indicate that the provision is mandatory, and the word 'shall' in suitable circumstances may be read as directory and not mandatory, especially when the provision is procedural.”, it ruled.
Justice Gopinath P. made the ruling while dealing with a challenge by a borrower's wife and son to arbitration proceedings initiated by Mayyanad Regional Co-operative Bank No. 94.
Calcutta High Court
Case Title : Bijay Saha@ Bijoy Saha v. Ajit Saha and Ors
Case Number : FMAT(ARBAWRD) 3 of 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(CAL) 214
The Calcutta High Court on Friday set aside an order of the Darjeeling District Judge restraining a Sole Arbitrator from proceeding with a pending application under Section 33 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, holding that courts must exercise restraint in interfering with an ongoing arbitral process.
A bench of Justice Ravi Kishan Kapur and Justice Supratim Bhattacharya was hearing an appeal against an order of the District Judge, Darjeeling, in a dispute between family members concerning the management and control of family-owned companies.
“The instances of judicial intervention are limited and circumscribed under the Act. The repeated pronouncements by all Courts that when matters are pending before the Arbitrator, the Courts should not unnecessarily interfere with the arbitral process have been disregarded.” it observed.
Following their father's death, the parties referred their disputes to arbitration, resulting in an award dated September 9, 2014. The award was put to execution in 2022. The appellant's subsequent application under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act, alleging omissions and seeking corrections, was dismissed, with liberty to pursue an appropriate remedy.
Case Title : STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LIMITED VS M/S EASTERN MINERALS AND TRADING AGENCY
Case Number : EC-COM 155 OF 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 212
The Calcutta High Court on 7 September held that the period during which execution of an arbitral award was practically unavailable due to binding judicial precedent cannot be counted for computing the limitation period.
Justice Gaurang Kanth allowed Steel Authority of India Limited's (SAIL) execution petition, holding that the period from 29 February 2008 to 22 October 2015 had to be excluded while computing the 12-year limitation period. The Bench held:
“To hold that limitation ran uninterrupted through the very period in which the award-holder's remedy stood paralysed by binding authority would allow the mischief the Amendment was designed to cure to operate as an independent and permanent bar to the Award notwithstanding the cure.”
Calcutta High Court Rejects Reliance Jute Mills' ₹1.09 Cr. Claim Against Over Interest On Interest
Case Title : RELIANCE JUTE MILLS (INTERNATIONAL) LIMITED VERSUS THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
Case Number : EC-COM 594 OF 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 209
The Calcutta High Court on 27 August dismissed Reliance Jute Mills (International) Ltd's execution petition seeking an additional Rs. 1.09 crore from The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd, after finding that Reliance had already received Rs. 8.76 crore under the arbitral award dated 2 March 2020.
Justice Gaurang Kanth held that the amount already paid, together with accrued interest, exceeded the amount payable under the award and that Reliance could not claim further interest by treating accrued interest as part of the principal. The Bench said:
“As against this sum genuinely due under the Award, a sum of Rs. 8,76,59,688/- already stands paid to the Award Holder. It therefore emerges that the amount already paid exceeds, by approximately Rs. 13.7 lakh, the amount actually due on a correct, non-compounded reading of the Award. No further sum is, therefore, payable to the Award holder, and the claim for an additional sum of Rs. 1,09,24,081/- is found to be without merit.”
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Case Title : Susajja JV Anand LLP v. Bhopal Municipal Corporation
Case Number : Arbitration Case No. 66 of 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (MP) 63
The Madhya Pradesh High Court on 3 September reiterated that a waste management contract does not become a “works contract” merely because it involves incidental civil construction, and that disputes arising from such a contract can be referred to arbitration under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Justice Deepak Khot allowed Susajja JV Anand LLP's application against Bhopal Municipal Corporation and appointed former Calcutta High Court Chief Justice Sujoy Paul as the sole arbitrator to resolve the contractual dispute between the parties. The Bench held:
“Therefore, following the view taken by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ecogreen Energy (supra) as well as by this Court in the case of M/s PKH M.P. Convention Center (supra), this Court is also of the considered opinion that the contract in question is not a work contract, as it deals dominantly for the purpose of waste management and the civil work which is incidental to the said management cannot be said to be a works contract. Therefore, the present application is allowed.”
Patna High Court
Case Title: Raj Karan Singh v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 14490 of 2024
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(PAT )25
The Patna High Court has held that Tata Motors Finance Limited could not proceed against a borrower's commercial vehicle on the basis of an ex parte arbitral award without following the prescribed enforcement process.
Justice Girijish Kumar observed that the finance company had failed to act under Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and had “taken the law in its hand," which was impermissible.
Section 36 requires an enforceable arbitral award to be enforced in the same manner as a civil court decree. The court therefore held that Tata Motors Finance should have approached the competent civil court to execute the award before proceeding against the vehicle.
Madras High Court
Madras High Court Says Time Extension Doesn't Waive Liquidated Damages If Right Is Reserved
Case Title : Ansaldo Energia S.P.A. & Anr. v. M/s Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd.
Case Number : OSA No. 140 of 2022 and A. No. 3696 of 2023 in OP No. 709 of 2016
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 261
The Madras High Court has refused to interfere with an arbitral award in a dispute over delays in the expansion of Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited's First Thermal Power Station by two 210 MW units.
It held that NLC had not waived its right to claim liquidated damages by granting extensions of time, as each extension expressly reserved that right.
A bench of Justice P. Velmurugan and Justice K. Govindarajan Thilakavadi observed:
“Where the promisee permits further performance and extends the period, the question whether the right to claim compensation has been waived has to be determined from the conduct and communications between the parties. In the present case, the extensions granted by the Respondent were not unconditional extensions.”