Supreme Court
Supreme Court Quashes Cheating Case Against Ex-Darjeeling Organic Tea Estates CEO Over ₹40 Lakh Deal
Case Title Indroneel Goho v. Razouvonuo Thong & Anr.
Case Number Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 10621 of 2025; 2026 INSC 1115
Citation 2026 LLBiz SC 337
The Supreme Court has quashed cheating proceedings against Indroneel Goho, who was serving as Chief Executive Officer of Darjeeling Organic Tea Estates Private Limited at the time of a transaction involving the Jamguri Tea Estate in Assam.
The case arose from a ₹40 lakh agreement concerning the property.
A Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta set aside the Gauhati High Court's order refusing to quash the criminal proceedings. The complaint alleged that Goho had falsely represented that the estate belonged to the company. The Court held that mere failure to fulfil contractual obligations does not constitute cheating unless dishonest intention existed at the inception of the transaction.
“For an offence under Sections 417 and 420 of IPC, the fraudulent or dishonest intention must exist at the inception of the transaction and must have induced the complainant to part with property. A subsequent failure to perform a contractual obligation cannot, by itself, give rise to an inference of such intention,” the Court ruled
Arbitration Clause Cannot Alone Determine Seat When Multiple Places Are Specified: Supreme Court
Case Title ARCIS CLEAN ENERGY PVT. LTD VERSUS PARSHVA INNOVATION
Case Number Arising out of SLP Civil No. 35915 of 2025
Citation 2026 LLBiz SC 332
The Supreme Court has held that when an arbitration clause specifies two places, namely Delhi and Goa, the juridical seat of arbitration must be determined by reading the agreement as a whole, including the governing law and jurisdiction clause.
The Court rejected the argument that the arbitration clause alone should determine the seat because it is independent of the main contract.
A division bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Vijay Bishnoi set aside the Delhi High Court's November 11, 2025 order appointing an arbitrator in a dispute between Arcis Clean Energy Pvt Ltd and Parshva Innovation.
"The submission on behalf of the appellant that the arbitration agreement is independent of the main contract and, therefore, the arbitration clause would alone determine the juridical seat, and not the Governing Law clause, cannot be countenanced for the simple reason that the arbitration clause itself mentions two places, namely, Delhi and Goa.", the Court observed.
Case Title: Smart City Kochi Infrastructure Private Limited v. M/s Musthafa and Almana International Consultants
Case Number: Special Leave Petition (C) No. 28782 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz SC 326
The Supreme Court has appointed former Supreme Court Judge Justice K.M. Joseph as Arbitrator to resolve the monetary disputes between Smart City Kochi Infrastructure Pvt Ltd. and Musthafa and Almana International Consultants arising from a sub lease of premises in the SmartCity Special Economic Zone (SEZ).
A Division Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran while asking the parties to approach Justice Joseph within two weeks with a copy of the order, directed that the parties' claims relating to rent, maintenance charges, damages and the legality of termination be adjudicated in arbitration under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Case Title Shreeram Builders v. Upendra Kantilal Thanawala and Others
Case Number Civil Appeal Nos. 9817–9818 of 2024
Citation 2026 LLBiz SC 348
On 29 October, the Supreme Court disposed of appeals filed by Shreeram Builders and upheld the Bombay High Court's decision to set aside an arbitral award directing the execution of a sale deed in favour of the builder, holding that the arbitrators had disregarded the parties' contractual terms.
A Division Bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kumar and Sanjeev Sachdeva reiterated that the nature of an agreement must be determined by the rights and obligations it creates, rather than its title or the stamp duty paid on it. Relying on Sasan Power Limited v. North American Coal Corporation (India) Limited, the judges observed:
“Thus, it is the contents of the agreement that would determine its actual nature. Hence, the stamp duty did not conclude the issue and the agreement had to be examined, not only for its import but also what it entailed in the context of the arbitration proceedings.”
Case Title M/S ROYAL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY PVT. LTD VERSUS M/S NATIONAL PROJECTS CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION
Case Number ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO. 14005 of 2026
Citation 2026 LLBiz SC 346
The Supreme Court on Wednesday asked the Law Commission of India to study the legal framework governing the enforcement of arbitral awards and recommend changes to ensure that successful parties can recover awarded amounts without prolonged litigation.
The Court asked the Commission to identify practical obstacles to timely recovery, examine enforcement mechanisms in other jurisdictions and consider whether domestic and foreign arbitral awards require separate procedures or a common framework with appropriate safeguards.
"In these circumstances, we request the Law Commission of India to undertake a focused study of the statutory and procedural framework governing the enforcement and execution of arbitral awards. The study may identify the practical impediments to timely recovery, examine the experience of other jurisdictions, and consider whether domestic and foreign arbitral awards warrant distinct enforcement procedures or a common framework with appropriate safeguards.", a bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and Aparesh Kumar Singh said.
High Court Cannot Extend Arbitrator's Mandate Merely Because It Appointed Arbitrator: Supreme Court
Case Title SOUTH BIHAR POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LTD. VERSUS INDIA POWER CORPORATION RESPONDENT(S) LTD. & ANR.
Case Number CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9313 OF 2026
Citation 2026 LLBiz SC 345
The Supreme Court has held that a High Court's power to appoint an arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 does not automatically empower it to extend the arbitrator's mandate under Section 29A(4) of the Act, even when the arbitrator was appointed by the Chief Justice of the High Court or his designate.
The Court said that the power to extend the mandate rests with the competent court as defined under Section 2(1)(e) of the Act.
"Based on our above discussion and analysis, we hold that the view taken by the High Court in so far the third question is concerned i.e. the Chief Justice of the High Court or his designate empowered under Section 11 of the 1996 Act can grant extension of time under Section 29A(4) is clearly unsustainable in law. The conclusion reached by the High Court that the jurisdiction to extend the period of time has to be exercised by the High Court under Section 29A of the 1996 Act is not correct and is accordingly set aside.", a division bench of Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Atul S. Chandurkar observed.
High Courts
Bombay High Court
Case Title : AND Movie Products LLP v. Echelon Productions & Ors.
Case Number : Commercial Arbitration Petition (L) No. 34544 of 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 578
On Monday, 19 October, the Bombay High Court ruled that Echelon Productions cannot commercially release the Hindi film Tu Hai Meri Kiran, starring Sonakshi Sinha and Zaheer Iqbal, until it secures co-producer AND Movie Products LLP's Rs. 8.85 crore investment with 15% annual interest. The film is scheduled for theatrical release on 23 October 2026.
A Single Bench of Justice Amit Borkar substantially allowed AND Movie Products LLP's petition seeking interim protection of its investment and contractual rights in the film. He observed:
“In my view, the proper way is not to stop the Film from being released in every situation. Such an order would not consider the money, time and effort spent by the Respondents in producing the Film and the possibility of earning revenue from its release. At the same time, it would not be proper to allow the Film to be released and commercially exploited without securing the Petitioner's investment, when the agreement provides for repayment and the prescribed period has expired.”
Bombay High Court Appoints Arbitrator In Suncrypto-WazirX Dispute Over $261,967 In Crypto Assets
Case Title Angelic Info Tech Private Limited v. Zanmai Labs Private Limited
Case Number Comm Arbitration Application (L) No. 38566 of 2025
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 579
The Bombay High Court on 16 October appointed a sole arbitrator to resolve a dispute between Angellic Info Tech Private Limited, operator of Suncrypto, and Zanmai Labs Private Limited, operator of WazirX, over the alleged inability to withdraw crypto assets worth USD 261,967.86729.
Justice Amit Borkar allowed Angellic Info Tech's petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and appointed Advocate Dormaan Dalal as the sole arbitrator. He held:
“In my view, only because the Broker Terms form part of the User Agreement, it does not mean that the provisions of the Broker Terms have no separate meaning or effect. The parties have provided how the two documents will operate when there is a conflict between them. This arrangement agreed by the parties has to be given proper effect.”
Housing Society Not Liable for Developer's RERA Obligations As Landowner: Bombay High Court
Case Title Maruthi Co-operative Housing Society Limited v. Tridhaatu Maruthi Developers LLP & Anr.
Case Number Commercial Arbitration Petition (L) No. 26942 of 2026
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 580
The Bombay High Court has ruled that a housing society as a landowner cannot be held liable for a developer's obligations under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA), merely because the developer entered into agreements for sale with flat purchasers under a redevelopment agreement.
Justice Arun R. Pedneker granted interim relief to Maruthi Co-operative Housing Society Limited, allowing it to appoint a new developer. The court also directed payment of ₹7.35 crore in unpaid transit rent and clearance of ₹1.11 crore in statutory dues.
The court observed, “However, none of the provisions of RERA renders the owner of the freehold or leasehold interest in the land, who enters into a development agreement with a developer, liable for discharging the developer's obligations under RERA merely because the developer subsequently enters into agreements for sale with third-party flat purchasers on the basis of such development agreement.”
Bombay High Court Appoints Receiver To Take Possession Of Medical Equipment Financed By Siemens
Case Title Siemens Financial Services Private Limited v. Nadeem Ahmad Khandey & Ors.
Case Number Commercial Arbitration Petition (L) No. 25053 of 2026
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 583
The Bombay High Court on 19 October appointed a Court Receiver to take physical possession of medical equipment financed by Siemens Financial Services Private Limited through a Rs. 1.05 crore loan, following repeated repayment defaults by borrower Nadeem Ahmad Khandey.
A Single Bench comprising Justice Amit Borkar directed the Receiver to hand over the equipment to Siemens for custody pending arbitration, while prohibiting its sale, auction, transfer or dismantling. He observed:
“The order is not being passed on the basis of any finding of fraud or a proved attempt to defeat the arbitration proceedings. It is being passed because of the contractual security, the continued defaults, the failure to hand over possession and the need to preserve the machinery until the dispute is decided.”
Bombay High Court Allows Five Doctors' Appeal In 21-Year Property Dispute, Finds Prima Facie Fraud
Case Title Dr. Devidas R. Sheregar & Ors. v. Zeenal Constructions Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Case Number Commercial Arbitration Appeal (L) No. 25270 of 2026 in Commercial Arbitration Petition (L) No. 12193 of 2026
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 588
The Bombay High Court on 21 October set aside a Single Judge's order refusing interim protection to five doctors who invested Rs. 60 lakh in commercial premises under a 2005 agreement, holding that the developers had prima facie attempted to cheat them by retaining their investment for over 21 years without delivering the promised property.
A Division Bench comprising Justices A.S. Gadkari and Kamal Khata allowed the appeal filed by Dr. Devidas R. Sheregar, Dr. Alka Jain, Dr. Manoj S. Aithal, Dr. Suresh Shetty and Dr. Shishir Shetty against Zeenal Constructions Private Limited and other parties, protecting their contractual rights over the proposed premises in the Krishna Ambika Arcade Project in Goregaon, Mumbai. The judges observed:
“Perusal of the record indicates that, the Respondents have attempted to play fraud on the Appellants. They have outrightly cheated the Appellants. In our view, the Appellants, who are a group of doctors by profession, had together invested their hard-earned money with the Respondents, who continue to use the monies of the Appellants interest free for over 21 years and now claim that the MoU stood terminated or that it came to an end long ago by the conduct of the parties.”
Bombay High Court Restrains Developers From Dealing With Assets In ₹278 Crore Swan Corp Dispute
Case Title Swan Corp Limited & Ors. v. Subramanya Constructions and Developments Co. Limited & Ors.
Case Number Commercial Arbitration Petition (L) No. 32517 of 2026
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 593
The Bombay High Court on 22 October restrained Subramanya Constructions and Developments Co. Limited and Prakruthi Infrastructure and Development Co. Limited from dealing with their assets in a Rs. 278 crore arbitration settlement dispute with Swan Corp Limited.
A Bench of Justice Amit Borkar granted interim protection to Swan Corp Limited (formerly Swan Energy Limited), Cardinal Energy and Infrastructure Private Limited and Pegasus Ventures Private Limited, and directed the developers to disclose their financial records and preserve specified unsold properties in Mysore. It observed:
“This Court is not required to conclude that the financing efforts were dishonest merely because they were made. However, it can be seen that transactions concerning properties and interests relevant to the Petitioners' claim were being considered. Therefore, the present position of those properties and interests needs to be disclosed and protected.”
Case Title Wellgroomed Venture v. Dr. Kamat's Hospital
Case Number Arbitration Application No. 69 of 2026
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 589
The Bombay High Court on 29 September held that courts cannot appoint an arbitrator without ensuring compliance with the pre-arbitration procedure agreed upon by the parties.
Justice Amit Borkar dismissed an application filed by Wellgroomed Venture against Dr. Kamat's Hospital under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking appointment of an arbitrator to resolve a dispute over alleged maintenance and assessment dues of Rs. 29.36 lakh. The Bench observed:
“...arbitration itself is based upon the consent of the parties. The Court cannot change the procedure which the parties had agreed between themselves. When the Agreement provides that one step has to take place before the next step can be taken, that agreement has to be given proper meaning.”
Commercial Links With Party Insufficient To Refer Non-Signatory To Arbitration: Bombay High Court
Case Title New Consolidated Construction Company Limited vs 1. Limitless Contracting Private Limited 2. Man Realty Limited 3. Purvankara Limited
Case Number COMM ARBITRATION APPLICATION (L) NO.38984 OF 2025
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 565
The Bombay High Court on 29 September held that a company cannot be referred to arbitration merely because it has a commercial connection with a contracting party or the project in dispute. A non-signatory can be referred to arbitration only when material prima facie establishes its consent to be bound by the arbitration agreement.
Justice Amit Borkar appointed advocate Tushad Kakalia as sole arbitrator to resolve a dispute over Rs. 12.37 crore in construction dues between New Consolidated Construction Company Ltd. and Limitless Contracting Pvt. Ltd., while declining to refer Man Realty and Purvankara to arbitration. He held:
“...merely having some connection with one contracting party or with the project in which the contract was performed cannot by itself make a person a party to the arbitration.”
Interim Protection In Arbitration Can't Be Granted Merely On Disputed Money Claim: Bombay High Court
Case Title Hemlata Ajay Ramani V/s. Alag Property Constructions Pvt Ltd.
Case Number COMM ARBITRATION PETITION (L) NO.24230 OF 2026
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 564
The Bombay High Court on 5 October held that a party seeking interim protection under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, must demonstrate a real risk that recovery under a future arbitral award may become difficult, as a disputed monetary claim alone does not justify such relief.
Justice Amit Borkar directed Alag Property Constructions Pvt. Ltd. to deposit Rs. 58,97,600 within four weeks in a dispute with flat purchaser Hemlata Ajay Ramani over the refund of money following cancellation of a flat purchase agreement. The Bench held:
“The power under Section 9 cannot be used merely because there is some disputed claim for money. The party asking for protection has to show circumstances because of which such protection is necessary, so that the final arbitral award, if passed in its favour, does not become difficult to enforce. At the same time, the Court is not required to follow one fixed formula in every case. If the material before the Court shows that there is a real need for protection, the Court can consider an appropriate interim measure.”
Case Title Aatif Javeed Merchant v. S.S. Crown Infrastructure & Ors.
Case Number Commercial Arbitration Petition (L) No. 30951 of 2026
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 563
On Tuesday, 13 October, the Bombay High Court held that a real estate developer's ordinary business of selling flats does not, by itself, establish a partner's authority to enter into every property transaction on behalf of the firm.
Justice Amit Borkar partly allowed a petition filed by Aatif Javeed Merchant, a majority profit-sharing partner of S.S. Crown Infrastructure, under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, granting limited interim protection against unauthorised property transactions and directing the other partners to disclose sale particulars within four weeks. The Bench held:
“The fact that selling flats is part of the ordinary business of a developer is relevant. But that fact alone cannot decide whether a partner had authority to enter into each and every transaction.”
Case Title : Sky One Airways Private Limited v. Nayan Arun Jagjivan & Ors.
Case Number : Commercial Arbitration Petition (L) No. 30600 of 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 561
The Bombay High Court on 5 October dismissed Sky One Airways Private Limited's petition seeking to freeze shares held by Heligo Charters' sellers and restrain actions affecting the company, holding that the airline's belated offer to pay the overdue Rs. 52.50 lakh instalment did not establish timely compliance with the share-purchase terms.
Justice Amit Borkar held that a party seeking interim protection in an acquisition dispute cannot establish readiness and willingness to perform its obligations by offering to pay an overdue instalment after the dispute has arisen. The Bench observed:
“Readiness and willingness cannot be shown only by an offer made after the dispute has started when an important payment had remained unpaid earlier.”
Case Title Ingram Micro India Private Limited Vs. Best Hawk Infosystems Private Limited
Case Number COMM ARBITRATION PETITION (L) NO.23653 of 2026
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 556
The Bombay High Court has held that the pendency of insolvency proceedings against a company does not, by itself, mean that a creditor's claim will fail.
However, when considered alongside audited financial losses, negative net worth, substantial liabilities and limited assets, such proceedings can strengthen the case for securing a creditor's claim pending arbitration.
“The mere pendency of such proceedings does not mean that the claim of the Petitioner will necessarily fail. But when this circumstance is seen together with the audited financial loss, negative net worth, substantial liabilities and limited assets disclosed by the Respondent, it adds to the circumstances which show that protection of the assets is required,” Justice Amit Borkar observed.
Bombay High Court Restrains DUNE From Creating Third-Party Rights In 'SNAP', Protects VVAA's 40% IP
Case Title VVAA Films Private Limited v. DUNE Collective LLP
Case Number COMM ARBITRATION PETITION (L) NO.25744 OF 2026
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 555
The Bombay High Court on 5 October restrained DUNE Collective LLP from creating third-party rights in the Hindi feature film “SNAP” that could prejudice co-producer VVAA Films Private Limited's claimed 40% intellectual property interest, pending commencement of arbitration.
Justice Amit Borkar also directed DUNE to disclose records showing how it had used VVAA's funds, but declined to order specific performance of the co-production agreement or grant a blanket restraint against DUNE acting on its termination. The Bench held:
“The period which the parties agreed cannot be reduced from thirty days to thirty-six hours because the Respondent considered the alleged default to be serious,”
Case Title R.A. Ghule, through it's sole Proprietor Rajabhau Apparao Ghule vs Sinnar Municipal Council & Ors
Case Number COMM ARBITRATION APPLICATION (L) NO.15854 OF 2026
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 552
On September 7, the Bombay High Court held that an arbitration agreement cannot be created where parties never intended to arbitrate but a clause cannot be rejected merely because it does not use technical arbitration terminology if its substance demonstrates the necessary intention.
Justice Amit Borkar held that Clause 8 of the contract constituted an arbitration agreement and appointed Justice Avinash Gharote, former Judge of the Bombay High Court as the Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate disputes arising out of the contract. The Court also held Mumbai to be the seat of arbitration.
"The Court cannot create an arbitration agreement where there was no intention to arbitrate. But equally, a clause cannot be rejected only because it is not drafted in technical arbitration language, if its substance shows the necessary intention."
Case Title Girish Narang Vs. Virendra Arora 2. Samast Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. 3. Mindsweep Ideas Private Limited
Case Number ARBITRATION APPLICATION (L) NO.26915 OF 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 560
The Bombay High Court has appointed a sole arbitrator to adjudicate disputes arising from the production, financing, management and commercial exploitation of JATADHARA, the Sonakshi Sinha-Sudheer Babu starrer, holding that the parties had agreed to refer unresolved disputes to arbitration under their Partnership Deed.
Justice Amit Borkar examined the Partnership Deed dated April 1, 2025 and its Clause 11, which provides that after an attempt at amicable resolution, an unresolved dispute “shall be referred to arbitration”. The court appointed advocate Harsh Moorjani as the sole arbitrator after the parties failed to mutually appoint one under the mechanism provided in the Deed.
Case Title Empire Realty v. Virani Tower Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. & Ors
Case Number Comm Arbitration Petition (L) No. 26962 of 2026
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 548
The Bombay High Court on 7 September held that a secured creditor's possession of mortgaged property under the SARFAESI Act does not, by itself, prevent redevelopment of the property, provided the creditor's security remains protected.
Justice Amit Borkar permitted redevelopment of flats in Virani Towers, over which the State Bank of India (SBI) had taken possession under SARFAESI proceedings, while directing that the Bank's security should not be diluted or extinguished. The Bench observed:
“…Section 35 of the SARFAESI Act cannot be understood to mean that a secured property can never be redeveloped. The provision protects the operation of the SARFAESI Act against inconsistent provisions contained in other laws. It does not mean that redevelopment must stop even when the Bank's security is properly protected. The Bank continues to have its independent remedies under the SARFAESI Act.”
Bombay High Court Allows Widow To Withdraw ₹1.25 Crore Pending Arbitration Over Disputed Flat Sale
Case Title Laxmi Madhukar Athawale v. SSD Escatics Private Limited & Ors.
Case Number Interim Application (L) No. 33914 of 2026 in Commercial Arbitration Petition No. 682 of 2025
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 612
The Bombay High Court on 27 October allowed Laxmi Madhukar Athawale, a 75-year-old widow, to withdraw Rs. 1.25 crore with accrued interest deposited by SSD Escatics Private Limited and its representatives, pending arbitration over a Mumbai flat allegedly sold to her despite an earlier sale and mortgage.
Justice Amit Borkar held that continued retention of money deposited as interim protection may cause undue hardship when circumstances materially change, and that withdrawal may be permitted subject to safeguards preserving the parties' rights in the underlying dispute. The Bench held:
“The money lying in Court comes from the very transaction relating to her purchase of the flat. Keeping the entire amount in Court for an unlimited period, even after the circumstances have changed, would cause continuing hardship to her".
Case Title Anil Sunder Jhangiani v. Om Sadan Cooperative Housing Society Limited & Anr.
Case Number Commercial Arbitration Petition (L) No. 31481 of 2026
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 606
The Bombay High Court has recently ruled that a housing society member cannot be denied interim protection in a redevelopment dispute merely because he has not signed the redevelopment agreement.
Justice Amit Borkar held that the member's recorded membership and claimed rights in the property must also be considered.
“However, the fact that the Petitioner has not signed the agreement is not enough to reject his Petition without considering his claim, membership and need for interim protection. He is a recorded member claiming rights in premises forming part of the building being redeveloped. His claimed entitlement is directly affected by the Development Agreement and the steps being taken by the Respondents under it,” the court held.
Case Title 5 Paisa Capital Limited v. Ankit Agarwal
Case Number Arbitration Petition No. 380 of 2020
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 618
The Bombay High Court has set aside an arbitral award directing stockbroker 5 Paisa Capital Limited to pay ₹15.92 lakh to an investor over a dispute involving a technical glitch in its trading software.
Justice Aarti Sathe held that the appellate arbitral tribunal had failed to decide key issues, including whether the glitch caused the investor's losses and whether the broker was justified in liquidating his positions under its Risk Policy.
The court observed that the tribunal had merely reproduced the parties' submissions without returning findings on their rival contentions.
“All these are questions which are rival contentions advanced by the parties which have neither been considered nor any finding has been rendered on them by the Appellate Arbitral Tribunal. This Court, therefore, cannot undertake the exercise to adjudicate upon these issues and come to an independent finding under Section 34 of the Act, and would be thus constrained to set aside the impugned appellate arbitral award which suffers from the vice of being an award rendered without giving findings on contentious issues," the court held.
Invalid Arbitrator Appointment Process Does Not Invalidate Arbitration Agreement: Bombay High Court
Case Title Nisus Finance Services Co. Limited & Anr. v. Blisvins Realty Private Limited & Ors.
Case Number Commercial Arbitration Application No. 620/2026
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 617
The Bombay High Court has held that an invalid procedure for appointing an arbitrator does not invalidate the underlying arbitration agreement, which may remain enforceable even if the agreed appointment mechanism cannot be followed.
A Single Bench of Justice Amit Borkar made the observation while allowing an application filed by Nisus Finance Services Co. Limited and Nisus BCD Advisors LLP seeking the appointment of an arbitrator to resolve their disputes with Blisvins Realty Private Limited and others.
The court ruled that the unilateral appointment of an arbitrator by a party interested in the dispute was invalid, but this did not affect the underlying arbitration agreement.
“However, the existence of an arbitration agreement and the validity of the procedure for appointment of an Arbitrator are two different things. The arbitration agreement may continue to be valid even if the method of appointment mentioned in it cannot be followed,” the court held.
Bombay High Court Stays Malad Gymkhana's Restaurant Termination Notice, Bars Third-Party Rights
Case Title Achieve Hospitality Vs. Malad Gymkhana Limited
Case Number COMM ARBITRATION PETITION (L) NO.33587 OF 2026
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 602
On Monday, 26 October, the Bombay High Court partly allowed Achieve Hospitality's petition against Malad Gymkhana Limited, staying the termination notice concerning its existing restaurant and restraining the Gymkhana from creating third-party rights in a proposed new restaurant and two banquet halls pending arbitration.
A Bench of Justice Amit Borkar held that a party cannot bypass a contractually agreed cure period when terminating an agreement and must preserve the existing business arrangement pending arbitration where the validity of the termination is seriously disputed. He held:
“I am of the view that the Petition deserves to be allowed in part. At this stage, it would not be proper to decide whether every term of Clause 17 is enforceable or to direct immediate handover of the new restaurant and the two banquet halls. These issues will have to be decided in arbitration. Equally, it would not be proper to permit the Respondent to obstruct the Petitioner's existing business or create third-party rights in the disputed premises while the contractual issues remain unresolved and the validity of the termination notice is open to serious doubt."
Liquidated Damages Need No Proof Of Actual Loss If It Is Difficult To Quantify: Bombay High Court
Case Title Kumar Urban Development Private Limited v. The Jal Ratn Deep Co-operative Housing Society Limited
Case Number Commercial Arbitration Petition No. 443 of 2017
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 601
The Bombay High Court on 23 October held that proof of actual loss is not necessary for awarding liquidated damages where the loss is difficult to quantify and the amount stipulated in the contract represents a genuine pre-estimate of damages agreed upon by the parties.
Justice Aarti Sathe dismissed a petition filed by Kumar Urban Development Private Limited under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and upheld an arbitral award directing it to pay Rs. 2.675 crore to The Jal Ratn Deep Co-operative Housing Society Limited for delays in redeveloping 97 residential flats in Mumbai. It observed:
“In cases where damages or loss is difficult to prove, then the liquidated damages amount named in the contract, if it is a genuine pre-estimate of damage or loss agreed between the parties, then in that event the actual damage or loss need not be proved.”
Case Title Forech India Limited v. JSW Jaigarh Port Limited
Case Number Arbitration Petition No. 1775 of 2015
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 599
The Bombay High Court has held that an arbitral tribunal cannot reject one party's evidence merely because its witnesses are company employees while accepting evidence from similarly placed in-house witnesses of the opposing party.
Justice Arun R. Pedneker made the observation while setting aside a ₹2.16 crore arbitral award against Forech India Limited in favour of JSW Jaigarh Port Limited over defective conveyor belts. The Court held that the tribunal's unequal treatment of witnesses amounted to one-sided appreciation of evidence.
“The wholesome rejection of one party's evidence, while accepting evidence the claimant, whose witnesses were also in-house, without composite scrutiny shows one sided appreciation. The Arbitral Tribunal has not engaged with the evidence of the Petitioner", it observed.
Allahabad High Court
Case Title : State of U.P. through Additional Chief Secretary, Public Works Department, Government of U.P., Lucknow and others v. M/s Apex Construction Company, Mathura through Director/Proprietor Sri Jagdish Chowdhary and another
Case Number: Arbitration Appeal No. 62 of 2023
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (ALL) 89
The Allahabad High Court has held that an arbitral tribunal cannot award compound interest, or interest upon interest, where the contract between the parties makes no provision for it. The Court held that while the tribunal retains the power to grant interest both for the period before the reference and for the pendente lite and future periods, the compounding of that interest is impermissible in the absence of a specific stipulation.
Section 31(7)(a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, gives the arbitral tribunal, unless the parties have agreed otherwise, the discretion to include in the sum awarded interest at such rate as it deems reasonable, on the whole or any part of the money, for the whole or any part of the period between the date the cause of action arose and the date of the award.
Clause (b) provides that a sum directed to be paid by an arbitral award shall, unless the award otherwise directs, carry interest at 2% higher than the current rate of interest prevalent on the date of the award, from the date of the award till payment.
The bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Jaspreet Singh held
“It is now too well settled to be disputed that the compound interest cannot be granted unless there is a stipulation in the contract. The Arbitral Tribunal is a creature of the
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Case Title Ashok Kumar v. Bhupendra Kumar Lunkad and Others
Case Number Civil Revision No. 1152 of 2026
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC(MP) 71
The Madhya Pradesh High Court on Friday ruled that the doctrine of merger does not apply to arbitral awards, meaning the 12-year limitation period for executing an award runs from the date it becomes enforceable and not from a subsequent court order.
“No appeal is provided against arbitral award, and therefore, no question of merger of arbitral award into any order passed by the civil court is made out. It cannot be accepted that the award merged into the order passed by civil court. These are two different forums. Arbitral proceedings are different and court proceedings are different, therefore, by no stretch of imagination it can be accepted that the award would merge in the order passed by the civil court under Section 34 or 37, meaning thereby the doctrine of merger is not applicable to the arbitral awards,” Justice Vinay Saraf observed.
The court added, “Consequently, the limitation for filing the execution of arbitral award would start from the date, when it becomes enforceable.”
Case Title : MP Road Development Corporation v Viva Highways Ltd
Case Number : Writ Petition no. 38779 of 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(MP) 70
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has recently held that an arbitrator's decision conclusively determining an issue of jurisdiction as a preliminary issue constitutes an interim award, which can be challenged under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Alpesh Y. Kogje and Justice Deepak Khot held that the appropriate remedy against an order passed in Section 34 proceedings is an appeal under Section 37 and not a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.
"The Court is of the considered opinion that as the application under section 16 of the Act of 1996 filed by the petitioner having been dismissed by the Arbitrator, which was subjected to challenge in a writ petition, which was finally decided by relegating the matter to the Arbitrator to decide the issue of jurisdiction as a preliminary issue, the Arbitrator has decided the said issue finally, hence such a decision shall be inferred as an interim award and is amenable to the challenge under section 34 of the Act of 1996"
Case Title Global Buildocon Through Its Partners Tejkumar Tanted And Others v. Harsh S/o Bharat Sing Chauhan Through POA Holder Anand And Another
Case Number Arbitration Case No. 88 of 2026
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC (MP) 76
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has refused to appoint an arbitrator in a dispute over Global Buildocon's ₹1.25 crore claim concerning the proposed Global Towers residential project in Indore. It held that a clause allowing parties to approach civil courts if arbitration fails does not constitute a valid arbitration agreement.
A Single Bench of Justice Vinay Saraf ruled that Clause 5 of the development agreement did not make the arbitrator's decision final and binding on the parties. The court observed:
“After hearing counsel for the parties and perusal of documents, especially the Development Agreement Clause 5, this Court is of the view that the Clause 5 cannot be treated as an arbitration clause, because the clause itself provides that if the arbitrators are failed to decide the dispute, the parties will be free to approach Civil Court or any other Court. Meaning thereby, the decision of the arbitrator will not be final and binding upon the parties and the intention of the parties was to approach to the arbitrator for the purpose of resolution of dispute, between the parties and though the word has been used arbitration in the first part of the Clause 5, but the intention of the parties was not to resolve the dispute through arbitration.”
Fraud Allegations Do Not Automatically Bar Arbitration In Civil Disputes: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Case Title SAM Industries Ltd. v. Mahesh & Others
Case Number Arbitration Case No. 6 of 2026
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC (MP) 74
The Madhya Pradesh High Court on 23 October held that allegations of fraud and forgery do not automatically render a dispute non-arbitrable when they arise from a civil dispute under an arbitration agreement and can be examined by the arbitral tribunal.
Justice Vinay Saraf made the observation while allowing an application by SAM Industries Ltd. under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to appoint an arbitrator for its dispute with Mahesh, and proposed to appoint former Supreme Court Judge Justice J.K. Maheshwari as the arbitrator and directed the Principal Registrar to obtain his consent and declaration. The Bench observed:
“…Clause 14 of the agreement provides an arbitration clause and despite levelling the allegation of fraud and forgery, the matter is referrable to the arbitration in so far it relates to the dispute between applicant and non applicant No. 1, as the allegation of fraud and forgery is connected with the civil dispute and not having any larger impact on the society. The execution of agreement and the allegation of fraud and forgery can be examined by the Arbitrator on the basis of pleadings of the parties and therefore, in view of this Court the dispute between applicant and non applicant No. 1 is referable arbitration as per the terms of the agreement.”
Arbitral Award Challenge Limitation Runs From Certified Copy Receipt: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Case Title Anjana v. M/s. Sulabh Syntex
Case Number Arbitration Appeal No. 303 of 2023
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC (MP) 73
The Madhya Pradesh High Court on 23 October held that where an arbitral tribunal has not served a signed copy of an award under Section 31(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act), the limitation period for challenging the award under Section 34(3) begins when the aggrieved party receives a certified copy.
Justice Vinay Saraf dismissed an appeal filed by Anjana, proprietor of Maheshwari Vastra Bhandar, against the rejection of her application to set aside an arbitral award in favour of Sulabh Syntex. The Bench held:
“…The application under Section 34 for setting aside the award can be filed along with the signed copy of the award or with the certified copy of the award, meaning thereby if a party receives the certified copy of the award, the party may file the application under Section 34 and there would be no difficulty for the party to file the application for setting aside the award. Once the certified copy is received and a party is aggrieved by the award and does not choose to file the application for setting aside the same within the limitation period prescribed by the law, then the party would have to suffer for the negligent inaction.”
Criminal Investigation Cannot Be Used To Exert Pressure In Commercial Disputes: M.P. High Court
Case Title M/s Power Mech Projects Ltd. v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others
Case Number 2026:MPHC-JBP:72349
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC(MP) 72
The Madhya Pradesh High Court on 16 September held that criminal proceedings cannot be used to exert pressure in commercial disputes where allegations of fraud or diversion of funds do not disclose the essential ingredients of a criminal offence.
A Bench of Justice Himanshu Joshi quashed an Economic Offences Wing (EOW) complaint and consequential inquiry against Power Mech Projects Limited arising from a contractual dispute with Mapaex Minerals over sand mining projects, holding that the allegations did not disclose a criminal offence. The Court observed:
“In the present case, permitting the EOW inquiry to continue merely because the complaint uses allegations of fraud and diversion of funds, in circumstances where the underlying dispute is contractual and the essential ingredients of the alleged offences are not disclosed, would amount to permitting the criminal process to be utilised as a means of exerting pressure in a commercial dispute.”
Kerala High Court
Case Title P.K. Krishnamurthy v. C.V. James
Case Number O.P.(C) No. 1828 of 2026
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC(KER) 202
The Kerala High Court has reiterated that the three-month limitation period for challenging an arbitral award begins only when a party receives a duly signed copy of the award, not when the opposing party forwards an unsigned copy.
A single-judge bench of Justice Mohammed Nias C.P. observed, “Given the above, it follows that an unsigned draft, photocopy or other copy forwarded by the opposite party cannot, merely because it conveys the contents of the award, substitute for delivery and receipt of the signed copy under Section 31(5). The question is not whether the party knew of the award, but whether the signed award was delivered to and received by him in the manner contemplated by the Act.”
The court made the observation while dismissing a petition filed by P.K. Krishnamurthy, who had secured an arbitral award against C.V. James, proprietor of Sukhodaya Hospital, Kanjirappally. The award was passed in Krishnamurthy's favour on March 26, 2024, after which James challenged it under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Krishnamurthy argued that the challenge was time-barred because James had received an unsigned copy on April 8, 2024. James maintained that he received the signed copy from the arbitrator only on June 23, 2024
Jammu & Kashmir And Ladakh High Court
J&K High Court Says Final Bill Cannot Revive Time-Barred Claim, Upholds Set-Aside Award
Case Title Kamal Krishan Chibber v. UT of J&K &
Case Number Arb App No.05/2024
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC(JAM) 33
The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court on 6 October held that a time-barred claim cannot be revived merely because a department subsequently prepared a final bill, particularly when the bill was neither approved by the competent authority nor amounted to a written acknowledgment of liability under Section 19 of the J&K Limitation Act, Samvat 1995.
A Division Bench comprising Justices Rajnesh Oswal and Rahul Bharti dismissed a contractor's appeal against a Single Bench judgment that had set aside an arbitral award, except to the extent of the arbitrator's fee. The award had granted various monetary claims arising from a contract for execution of work at Wangat Weir, USHP-II, Kangan. It observed:
“entertaining a time-barred claim violates statutory mandate, rendering the resulting award vulnerable to being set aside for violating Public Policy.”
Supplier's Alleged Non-Registration Under MSMED Act Does Not Nullify Arbitral Award: J&K High Court
Case Title M/s Kashmir Confectionary Store and others / M/s Mehak Trading Co. / M/s Naugraein Traders v. M/s Mother Choice Health Care India
Case Number CR No. 36/2026 c/w CR No. 34/2026 & CR No. 35/2026
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC(JAM) 34
The High Court of Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh on 30 September held that an arbitral award passed under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 does not become a nullity merely because the supplier was allegedly not registered under the Act when the underlying transaction took place.
Justice Sanjay Dhar dismissed three revision petitions filed by Kashmir Confectionary Store, Mehak Trading Co. and Naugraein Traders, challenging the execution of arbitral awards obtained by Mother Choice Health Care India. The Bench observed:
“Even if, it is assumed that the respondent concern was not registered under MSME Act at the relevant time, still then for this reason only, the awards passed by the learned Arbitrator under the MSME Act would not become a nullity.”
Case Title Kamal Krishan Chibber v. UT of J&K &others
Case Number Arb App No.05/2024
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC(JAM) 36
The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has recently held that entertaining time-barred claims in arbitration violates the statutory mandate under Section 43 of the Jammu and Kashmir Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1997, making the resulting award vulnerable to being set aside as contrary to public policy.
“Consequently, entertaining a time-barred claim violates statutory mandate, rendering the resulting award vulnerable to being set aside for violating Public Policy,” a division bench of Justice Rajnesh Oswal and Justice Rahul Bharti observed.
The court made the observation while dismissing a contractor's appeal against a single judge's decision setting aside an arbitral award in a dispute over construction work for the Wangat Weir project at Kangan.
Case Title Kashmir Confectionary Store and others v. M/s Mother Choice Health Care India
Case Number CR No. 36/2026 c/w CR No. 34/2026 CR No. 35/2026
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC(JAM) 35
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladkah High Court has held that arbitral awards arising from disputes referred to a Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council do not become nullities merely because the supplier is assumed to have been unregistered under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006, when the transactions took place.
The court dismissed three revision petitions challenging the orders of the Principal District Judge, Jammu, which had rejected the objections filed by the petitioners against the execution of the arbitral awards.
The Court was hearing three revision petitions challenging three separate orders passed by the Principal District Judge, Jammu, whereby applications filed by the petitioners under Section 47 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, objecting to the execution of decrees passed in terms of the awards of the learned Arbitrator, were dismissed.
The awards had arisen out of disputes referred to the Himachal Pradesh Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council under Section 18(2) of the MSME Act.
The matter was heard by Justice Sanjay Dhar, who observed,
“Even if, it is assumed that the respondent concern was not registered under MSME Act at the relevant time, still then for this reason only, the awards passed by the learned Arbitrator under the MSME Act would not become a nullity.
Delhi High Court
Delhi High Court Appoints Local Commissioner In Aakash's ₹2.13 Crore Student Fee Dispute
Case Title Aakash Educational Services Limited v. Vaibhav Gupta, Sole Proprietor of M/s Shivrekkha Corporations
Case Number O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 491/2026; I.A. 29211/2026
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 1166
The Delhi High Court on 16 October appointed a Local Commissioner to inspect and preserve financial and electronic records at Aakash Educational Services Limited's former franchise centre in Gangapur City, Rajasthan.
Justice Vinod Kumar allowed Aakash's application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, following allegations that franchisee Vaibhav Gupta had failed to remit over Rs. 2.13 crore in student fees and obstructed Aakash's audit. The Bench held:
“In view of the nature of the records sought to be preserved, their relevance to the disputes between the parties and the circumstances pleaded by the Petitioner concerning the attempted audit, this Court is of the view that appointment of a Local Commissioner for the limited purpose of inspection and preservation of the relevant records is warranted.”
Case Title Som Shiva Impex Ltd. v. National Research Development Corporation & Anr.
Case Number O.M.P. (COMM) 23/2023 & I.A. 1241/2023
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 1155
The Delhi High Court on 13 October set aside a Rs. 2.60 crore arbitral damages award against Som Shiva Impex Limited in favour of the National Research Development Corporation (NRDC), holding that damages for breach of contract cannot be awarded without assessing the actual loss suffered.
Justice Subramonium Prasad held that the arbitrator had rejected NRDC's royalty claim because the technology was never commercialised but had nevertheless calculated damages using the unpaid royalties without determining whether NRDC had suffered any loss. He said:
“In the present case, the Arbitrator has not given nominal damages. A perusal of the Award indicates that the learned Arbitrator has proceeded to award damages on failure of transfer of technology by the Petitioner to the Respondent by and after 10.06.2020, i.e. the date on which the Petitioner was under a contractual obligation to transfer the technology on failure to commercialise the product. On this limited aspect, there are no observations rendered by the learned Arbitrator as to whether any loss has been suffered by the Respondent herein."
Case Title Department of Land Resources v. M/s Mukesh and Associates
Case Number FAO(OS) (COMM) 175/2024 and FAO(OS) (COMM) 233/2024
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 1148
The Delhi High Court on 15 October held that government departments cannot justify delays in filing arbitration appeals merely by citing reduced office functioning during the 2024 Lok Sabha elections without explaining how the elections prevented timely filing.
A Division Bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Justice Amit Sharma refused to condone delays of 119 and 132 days in two appeals filed by the Department of Land Resources against Mukesh and Associates, which challenged orders dismissing the Department's challenges to an arbitral award of approximately Rs. 11.24 crore arising from a watershed management consultancy contract.
Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in State of Maharashtra v. Borse Bros. Engineers & Contractors (P) Ltd., the judges observed:
“Further, the only reason stated for condonation of delay in filing in both the appeals, as stated hereinabove, that government offices were not functioning to its full capacity due to the Lok Sabha Election 2024, is completely vague and cannot in any manner justify the delay in filing both the appeals.”
“There is no explanation for each day's delay and no plausible reason is forthcoming as to how Lok Sabha Election 2024 prevented the appellant for taking necessary steps for filing the present appeals within the limitation period,” it added.
Case Title Kirloskar Pneumatic Company Limited v. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited
Case Number OMP (ENF.) (COMM.) 293/2025
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 1147
The Delhi High Court on 9 October held that an arbitral award stamped in one State does not attract additional stamp duty merely because it is brought into another State for enforcement, unless a specific statutory provision imposes such liability.
Justice Om Prakash Shukla rejected Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited's (ONGC) objection to the stamp duty paid on an arbitral award in favour of Kirloskar Pneumatic Company Limited, holding that differential stamp duty cannot be imposed without statutory authority. The Bench observed:
“The material consideration, therefore, is the existence of a statutory provision attracting such additional liability. The mere fact that an instrument executed and stamped in one State is subsequently brought into another State does not, without more, establish an obligation to pay differential stamp duty”.
Delhi High Court Refers Football Clubs' DSA Membership And Electoral Rights Disputes To Arbitrator
Case Title Ajmal FC and Anr. v. Sh. Anuj Gupta and Ors. (and connected matters)
Case Number O.M.P.(I) 15/2026, 16/2026, 17/2026, 18/2026, 19/2026 and 20/2026
Citation 2026 LLBizHC (DEL) 1137
The Delhi High Court has referred disputes involving six football clubs over disciplinary action affecting their membership and electoral rights in the Delhi Soccer Association to a previously appointed sole arbitrator.
Justice Om Prakash Shukla has asked the arbitrator to consider their requests for interim relief expeditiously, ahead of the association's elections on October 18, 2026.
The court observed, “Considering that the elections are scheduled for 18.10.2026, the learned Arbitrator is requested to take up the application for interim measures on an expeditious basis and make an endeavour to pass such appropriate order(s), in accordance with law, prior to the scheduled election.”
The six clubs are Ajmal FC, Goodwill FC, Hans Capital FC, Growing Stars SC, Ahbab FC and Mughal SC. They approached the high court in separate petitions against Anuj Gupta and others, challenging disciplinary action taken ahead of the elections.
Case Title Enerica Infra 3 Private Limited v. NTPC Vidyut Vyapar Nigam Limited & Anr.
Case Number O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 346/2026 & I.A. 27144/2026
Citation 2026 LLBizHC (DEL) 1136
The Delhi High Court has recently held that it cannot entertain a plea seeking interim relief in an electricity dispute when the State Electricity Regulatory Commission is empowered to grant similar relief under the Electricity Act, 2003.
Justice Tushar Rao Gedela dismissed a petition filed by Enerica Infra 3 Private Limited seeking to restrain NTPC Vidyut Vyapar Nigam Limited and Uttar Pradesh Power Transmission Corporation Limited from encashing bank guarantees worth ₹52.20 crore.
“It is clear from a reading of sub-section (2) of Section 94 of the Act that the SERC has the inherent powers to pass interim orders in any proceeding, hearing or matter before it. This jurisdiction conferred upon the SERC also postulates that the Commission can pass interim protection orders in the nature of those passed by Civil Courts under Section 9 of the A&C Act,” the court observed.
Case Title Travel2Agent.com & Ors. v. M/s Spice Jet Limited
Case Number OMP (ENF.) (COMM.) 192/2025, EX.APPL.(OS) 1486/2026, 1487/2026 & 1488/2026
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 1122
The Delhi High Court has recently directed debt-laden airline SpiceJet Limited to maintain approximately ₹58.80 lakh in its ICICI Bank and IDFC Bank accounts while hearing an application by Travel2Agent.com and others seeking attachment of the airline's bank accounts to recover dues under an arbitral award.
Justice Tushar Rao Gedela passed the order on October 9, 2026, after the decree holders' counsel submitted that SpiceJet had paid ₹25 lakh towards the outstanding amount of ₹83.80 lakh.
The court directed:
“In the meanwhile, judgment debtor is directed to maintain in its aforenoted Bank accounts, a sum of Rs.58,80,856/- (approx.) till the next date of listing.”
Case Title Mumbai International Airport Limited v. Airports Authority of India
Case Number FAO(OS) (COMM) 202/2024
Citation 2026 LLBizHC (DEL) 1135
The Delhi High Court has ruled that a judge's reproduction of substantial portions of an arbitral award while deciding a challenge to it does not, by itself, establish non-application of mind, provided the judge meaningfully examines the objections raised.
“The distinction lies not in the extent of textual reproduction, but in the existence or absence of judicial engagement with the controversy. Consequently, the mere circumstance that substantial portions of an arbitral award have been reproduced in a judgment does not, without more, establish non-application of mind,” a Division Bench of Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Bharat Parashar observed.
The court clarified that a judge need not formulate every reason afresh if the reasoning already on record is legally sustainable.
“Where a court examines the challenge before it and finds the reasoning of the decision under challenge to be legally sustainable, it may adopt that reasoning as the basis for its conclusion. Such adoption may be expressed by reproducing the relevant reasoning, referring to it, or expressly agreeing with it. The form in which the court conveys its agreement is not, by itself, determinative of the validity of the order. What matters is whether the judgment, read as a whole, demonstrates that the court has considered the controversy in the light of the applicable legal principles,” it ruled.
Delhi High Court Upholds Nil Award In ₹4.37 Cr. NHAI Contract, Says Claims Of Extra Work Needs Proof
Case Title M/s Abhoy Charan Bakshi v. National Highways Authority of India & Ors.
Case Number O.M.P. (COMM) 107/2023
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 1117
On 13 October, the Delhi High Court dismissed Abhoy Charan Bakshi's petition challenging a nil arbitral award in favour of the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) over a Rs. 4.37 crore road maintenance contract for the Baharampore–Farakka section of National Highway 34 in West Bengal.
Justice Subramonium Prasad held that a contractor cannot claim payment for additional work without evidence establishing that the work was carried out, and found that the arbitral tribunal had no basis to quantify the alleged additional work without supporting evidence. The Bench observed:
“In absence of any material to showcase additional work done by the Petitioner, there was no mechanism available before the Tribunal to compute or even establish that the alleged extra work was done by the Petitioner.”
Case Title Syed Farhan Ali v. ABB India Limited
Case Number CM(M) 1689/2026 & CM APPL. 50213/2026
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 1107
The Delhi High Court has upheld arrest warrants against a company's authorised representative for withholding details of its bank account during execution of an arbitral award, holding that filing an incomplete asset-disclosure affidavit cannot shield a company officer from coercive action under the Code of Civil Procedure.
Justice Ajay Digpaul dismissed a petition filed by Syed Farhan Ali, the authorised representative of Techno Aircon Industries Pvt Ltd, challenging the warrants issued by an executing court. The Court clarified that Ali was not being made personally liable under the arbitral award; the coercive proceedings arose from his own failure to comply with the asset-disclosure directions.
The Court held that filing an affidavit under Order XXI Rule 41(2) is not a formality. An officer who withholds material particulars within his knowledge cannot claim compliance merely because an affidavit was filed.
It observed, “The true import of Rule 41(2) is to secure a complete and meaningful disclosure of all material particulars of the assets of the judgment-debtor, so that the decree-holder and the executing court are placed in a position to effectively pursue satisfaction of the decree. The filing of an affidavit cannot, therefore, be treated as a mere formality. An affidavit filed by an officer of a company, which withholds material particulars, particularly information within the knowledge of the officer furnishing it, cannot constitute compliance in substance with a direction under Rule 41(2), and would therefore be punishable under Rule 41(3).”
Directors Cannot Be Held Liable For Company Debt Merely By Their Designation: Delhi High Court
Case Title Small Farmers Agri Business Consortium v. Vanilla India Producer Company Ltd. & Ors.
Case Number FAO (COMM) 133/2024
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 1098
The Delhi High Court has restored a ₹23.39 lakh arbitral award against Vanilla India Producer Company Limited while upholding the setting aside of the award against its four directors. The court held that directors cannot be made personally liable for a company's contractual debt merely because of their positions in the company.
A Division Bench of Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Bharat Parashar observed, “The LSA having held that the Directors were not personally liable, nevertheless fastened joint and several liability upon them solely by reason of their being Directors. Such reasoning is self-contradictory and contrary to settled law.”
The Bench further observed, “The Appellant's submission that the Chairman, Managing Director and Joint Managing Director are liable with the company, despite no averment against them, is not supported by any statutory provision, contractual term or judgment placed before this Court, and is contrary to the settled position stated above.”
Bank Guarantee Invocation Valid Even Without Specifying Recoverable Amount: Delhi High Court
Case Title M/S Sanjeevni Infra Projects Limited v. Union of India & Anr.
Case Number O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 469/2026 & I.A. 27830/2026
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 1092
On 7 October, the Delhi High Court held that a performance bank guarantee can be invoked without specifying the exact amount recoverable from a contractor, provided the invocation notice states that the guarantee is being invoked to meet recoveries due or likely to be due.
Justice Manoj Jain dismissed Sanjeevni Infra Projects Limited's plea to restrain the Union of India from encashing a Rs. 1.37 crore bank guarantee issued by HDFC Bank for a Central Public Works Department (CPWD) construction contract. The Bench observed:
“Merely because the amount to be recovered or likely to be recovered from the contractor has not been specified or crystallized in the invocation notice, it would not mean that the invocation is not in terms of the contractual obligations and unsustainable. Sum and substance of the invocation notice is found to be in complete synchronization with the contractual terms and guarantee in question.”
Delhi High Court Upholds Auction Of Judgment Debtor's Property Share Despite Pre-Attachment Transfer
Case Title Smt Nisha Sharma v. M/s INTEC Capital Limited and Ors.
Case Number EFA(COMM) 28/2026
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 1085
The Delhi High Court has upheld the auction of a judgment debtor's one-half undivided share in a Delhi property. The share had been transferred before formal attachment, but the court held that the transfer could not take it outside the pending execution proceedings.
A Division Bench of Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Shail Jain held that the property had already been identified in the execution petition. Its attachment and sale had also been sought before the transfer.
“That claim cannot succeed. The property had already been identified in the pending Execution Petition and its attachment and sale had been sought before the conveyance. The transfer remained subject to the rights enforceable in those proceedings under Section 52 TPA,” the court observed.
Delhi High Court Sets Aside Entire LIC Award After Finding Arbitrator's Appointment Impermissible
Case Title Life Insurance Corporation of India v. N.S. Associates Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number FAO(OS) (COMM) 261/2026
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 1084
On 6 October, the Delhi High Court allowed Life Insurance Corporation of India's (LIC) appeal against N.S. Associates Pvt. Ltd., extending the effect of an earlier Single Judge finding that LIC's unilateral appointment of the arbitrator was impermissible.
A Division Bench comprising Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Bharat Parashar held that a party cannot challenge an arbitral tribunal's authority to undo unfavourable claims while simultaneously seeking to preserve favourable portions of the same award, setting aside the award in its entirety after finding that the sole arbitrator was invalidly appointed. It observed:
“Once the appointment of the Arbitrator by the ED of the Appellant-Corporation was found to suffer from de jure ineligibility, the Arbitral Tribunal lacked the legal competence to adjudicate the disputes between the parties. The resultant proceedings and the Arbitral Award cannot, therefore, be sustained in part merely because the challenge under Section 34 had been framed by the Respondent with reference to specified claims.”
Choosing Arbitrator From Opponent's Unilateral Panel Does Not Waive Ineligibility: Delhi High Court
Case Title Newton Engineering and Chemicals Limited v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.
Case Number FAO (COMM) 50/2026
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 1083
The Delhi High Court on 6 October held that selecting an arbitrator from a panel unilaterally constituted by the opposite party does not amount to waiver of the statutory ineligibility under Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, even if the party subsequently participates in the arbitration.
A Division Bench comprising Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Bharat Parashar allowed Newton Engineering and Chemicals Limited's appeal, holding that a mechanism where one party alone determines the panel from which the other must choose does not provide equal participation in constituting the arbitral tribunal. It observed:
“A mechanism under which one party determines the entire panel and the other party is confined to selecting one name from that panel does not provide the latter with an equal say in the constitution of the Tribunal. The subsequent act of selection cannot retrospectively transform an unequal appointment process into an equal one.”
Pre-2015 Arbitration Does Not Validate Unilateral Arbitrator Appointment: Delhi HIgh Court
Case Title Tarsem Jain v. Bharat Forge Limited and Another
Case Number FAO(OS) (COMM) 150/2025 & CM APPL. 60540/2025
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 1075
The Delhi High Court has held that the fact that an arbitration began before the 2015 amendment to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act does not, by itself, make a unilateral appointment of an arbitrator valid.
A division bench of Justice Avneesh Jhingan and Justice Shail Jain upheld the setting aside of a ₹77 crore arbitral award against Bharat Forge Limited and BF Infrastructure Limited.
The court found that Tarsem Jain, who had invoked the arbitration, breached the agreed procedure by unilaterally appointing the sole arbitrator, contrary to Clause 20.4 of the Share Purchase Agreement and Section 11 of the Act.
The court observed, “There cannot be a quarrel with the proposition that Section 12(5) of the 2015 Amendment Act shall not apply to the cases where arbitration commenced prior to October, 2015 but this in itself shall not validate the unilateral appointment of the arbitrator by the appellant in contravention to Clause 20 of the SPA and Section 11 (6) of the Act.”
Case Title Shri Krishan Baldev Bansal v. Balbir Singh Tyagi & Ors.
Case Number FAO (COMM) 64/2026 & CM APPL. 14176/2026
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 1069
On 5 October, the Delhi High Court held that a partner's claim against co-partners for money paid towards a firm's liability remains arbitrable even if the partner made the payment as a guarantor. It also clarified that the nature of the claim, and not merely the capacity in which the bank proceeded against the partner, determines whether it is covered by the arbitration agreement.
A Division Bench comprising Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Bharat Parashar restored an arbitral award in favour of Krishan Baldev Bansal, who had paid Rs. 23.90 lakh to Union Bank of India towards settlement of dues owed by partnership firm Nova Electro World. The judges observed:
“However, the mere description of the Appellant as a guarantor cannot, in the facts of the present case, conclude the question of arbitrability. The same person was simultaneously a partner of the firm and a guarantor of the firm's cash-credit facility. The Settlement Certificate itself identifies him in both capacities. The relevant inquiry, therefore, is the substance of the claim which he brought before the Tribunal and not merely the capacity in which the Bank proceeded against him.”
Case Title Shikha Ghosh v. Axis Bank Ltd. & Anr.
Case Number FAO (COMM) 91/2025 & CM APPL. 20542/2025
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 1066
The Delhi High Court has directed the Reserve Bank of India to caution banks against unilateral appointments of arbitrators and consider remedial measures or guidance for banks and financial institutions on the issue.
The direction came after the Court was informed that an arbitrator appointed by Axis Bank had handled 4,155 arbitrations concerning the Bank over four to five years. The Bank also informed the Court that around 76,000 awards had been passed pan-India by such sole arbitrators concerning Axis Bank.
A Division Bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Dinesh Bhatt said Bhardwaj's handling of 4,155 cases was the “most shocking aspect” emerging from Axis Bank's affidavit.
“The most shocking aspect uncovered from the affidavit of the Respondent Bank is that in a span of four to five years the said Arbitrator - Shri Vikrant Bhardwaj has acted as an arbitrator in a whopping 4155 cases concerning the Respondent Bank.”
Case Title: Amazon Seller Services Private Limited v. Goodluck Buildtech Private Limited & Ors.
Case Number: O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 443/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 1031
The Delhi High Court on 28 September appointed a Local Commissioner to inspect and prepare an inventory of Amazon Seller Services Private Limited's assets lying at premises leased from Goodluck Buildtech Private Limited.
Justice Om Prakash Shukla also appointed former Supreme Court judge Justice S. Ravindra Bhat as sole arbitrator to adjudicate the lease dispute between the two parties, involving an indemnity claim of approximately Rs. 182.50 crore and fixtures and fit-outs stated to be worth around Rs. 120 crore. The Bench observed:
“In view of the parties' mutual consent to refer the dispute forming the subject matter of the present petition to arbitration, this Court considers it appropriate that commencement of arbitral proceedings shall not be delayed.
Arbitral Tribunal Cannot Permit PBG Appropriation Contrary To Contractual Terms: Delhi High Court
Case Title: ISGEC Heavy Engineering Limited v. Prakash Industries Limited
Case Number: O.M.P. (COMM) 503/2023
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 1037
The Delhi High Court on 31 August held that an arbitral tribunal cannot permit appropriation of Performance Bank Guarantee (PBG) proceeds contrary to the contractual terms governing the parties.
Justice Avneesh Jhingan was hearing a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 filed by ISGEC Heavy Engineering Limited challenging an arbitral award arising from its dispute with Prakash Industries Limited. The Bench observed:
“The tribunal permitting appropriation of the PBG proceeds towards the unproved losses and damages is without any basis and is consequently perverse. To that extent the award suffers from patent illegality.”
Arbitrator's Mandate Not Automatically Terminated By Expiry Of Indicative Timeline: Delhi High Court
Case Title: M.K. Construction v. Maj. Gen. Hoshiar Singh (Retd.) & Anr.
Case Number: FAO (COMM) 86/2023 & CM APPL. 17066/2023
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 1046
On 30 September, the Delhi High Court held that an arbitrator's mandate does not end merely because an indicative time period fixed by the Court for completing proceedings has expired, unless the direction imposed a mandatory deadline.
A Division Bench comprising Justices Avneesh Jhingan and Shail Jain dismissed M.K. Construction's appeal against an arbitral award in its residential construction dispute with Maj. Gen. Hoshiar Singh (Retd). It observed:
“The direction of this Court did not prescribe an inflexible or peremptory time limit for concluding the arbitral proceedings, the expiry of which by itself would terminate the mandate of the arbitrator.”
Case Title: British Marine PLC v. Steel Authority of India Ltd.
Case Number: EX. APPL. (OS) 8/2026 and EX. APPL. (OS) 19/2026 in OMP (ENF.) (COMM.) 50/2023
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 1080
The Delhi High Court has refused to release the remaining ₹213.24 crore deposited by Steel Authority of India Limited (SAIL) in enforcement proceedings initiated by British Marine PLC. The court held that the arbitral award could not be executed while it remained unstamped and the original award was not available before it.
Justice Vinod Kumar observed:
“Now the situation is that the original Award is not available before this Court. Though an arbitral Award is a chargeable instrument, as evident from Article 12 read with Article 15 to Schedule IA of The Indian Stamp (Delhi Amendment) Act 2001, the copy of the Award can neither be stamped nor can be impounded as per the Stamp Act, 1899. As already stated, unstamped Award would not be executable, therefore, the amount cannot be released to Decree Holder.”
The order, pronounced on October 1, 2026, dealt with two applications filed by British Marine in proceedings to enforce the award. SAIL had separately challenged the award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Arbitrators Need Not Discuss Every Document Or Contractual Clause In Award: Delhi High Court
Case Title MMTC Ltd. v. Chauhan Jewellers & Ors.
Case Number FAO(OS) (COMM) 108/2017 and CM APPL. 18464/2017
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 1192
The Delhi High Court has recently held that an arbitral award must be read fairly and as a whole, and arbitrators are not required to discuss every document or contractual clause separately, provided their reasoning is clear and reflects a permissible interpretation of the dispute.
A Division Bench of Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Bharat Parashar made the observation while partly allowing an appeal filed by MMTC Limited against Chauhan Jewellers and its partners in a ₹57.74 lakh dispute concerning five gold jewellery export consignments.
The Court set aside the arbitral award's rejection of claims relating to two consignments while upholding its findings concerning the remaining three.
The Court observed,
“Furthermore, an Award must be read fairly and as a whole. Arbitrators are not required to write exhaustive awards or to discuss every document and contractual clause in isolation. The decisive question is whether the pathway to the learned Tribunal's conclusion is discernible and reflects a permissible view of the dispute.”
CPWD Cannot Restrict Contractor's Arbitrator Choice To Its Own Panel: Delhi High Court
Case Title Pramod Kumar Goel v. Union of India Case No.: ARB.P. 1399/2026
Case Number ARB.P. 1399/2026
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 1170The Delhi High Court has held that the Central Public Works Department (CPWD) cannot appoint a sole arbitrator through a mechanism that empowers its own officer to make the appointment. It also cannot restrict a contractor's choice to a panel of arbitrators curated by the department.
Justice Sachin Datta observed:
“…the choice of the petitioner stands confined to a list of 'CPWD Empanelled Arbitrators' prepared by the respondent, with the Arbitrator Appointing Authority empowered to select and appoint from that list himself should the petitioner not exercise its option. That is not permissible as per Central Organisation for Railway Electrification (supra) and Kalpataru Projects International Ltd. The appointment mechanism contained in Clause 25 cannot, therefore, be sustained, and it is incumbent on this Court to appoint an independent Sole Arbitrator.”
The ruling came in a petition filed by Pramod Kumar Goel seeking the appointment of a sole arbitrator to resolve disputes arising from a contract with the Union of India through CPWD.
Case Title Telecommunications Consultants India Limited v. Vista Information Systems Private Limited
Case Number FAO(OS) (COMM) 140/2023
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 1175
The Delhi High Court has ruled that an objection to an arbitrator's ineligibility under Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, can be raised for the first time in an appeal and even at the execution stage, as the issue goes to the root of the arbitrator's jurisdiction.
“This issue of ineligibility of arbitrator goes to the root of the jurisdiction and can be raised for the first time in an appeal under Section 37 of the Act, even at the stage of execution,” a Division Bench of Justice Avneesh Jhingan and Justice Shail Jain ruled
The court set aside an arbitral award passed in favour of Vista Information Systems Private Limited after holding that the appointment of the sole arbitrator by Telecommunications Consultants India Limited (TCIL) violated Section 12(5), read with the Seventh Schedule of the Act.
Case Title Chief Electoral Officer & Anr. v. M/s Mahlakshmi Light House
Case Number FAO(OS) (COMM) 43/2018
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 1183
The Delhi High Court has upheld an arbitral award of over ₹1 crore to a contractor who supplied tents, furniture and electrical items on hire during the 1999 Lok Sabha elections. The court rejected a challenge by election authorities who alleged that the bills were inflated.
A Division Bench of Justice Avneesh Jhingan and Justice Shail Jain held that the arbitrator had reasonably relied on evidence of physical verification by Returning Officers before the structures were dismantled. The court found no reason to interfere with the arbitrator's assessment of the evidence.
“Suffice to say that the view taken by the arbitrator is plausible, suffers from no factual or legal error, much less perversity and calls for no interference,” the court ruled.
Unsuccessful Arbitration Party Must Meet Higher Threshold For Post-Award Relief: Delhi High Court
Case Title Thor Ventures (OPC) Private Limited v. NYEQ Technologies Private Limited
Case Number O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 461/2026 and O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 462/2026
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 1181
On 28 October, the Delhi High Court held that a party unsuccessful in arbitration can seek interim protection under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, after an adverse arbitral award, but must satisfy a higher threshold for such relief than at the pre-award stage.
Justice Tushar Rao Gedela granted interim protection to Thor Ventures (OPC) Private Limited, restraining NYEQ Technologies Private Limited from selling or creating third-party rights over two Gurugram properties pending the next hearing, despite an arbitral award rejecting Thor Ventures' claims. The Bench observed:
“That an unsuccessful party to the arbitration proceedings is entitled to invoke Section 9 of the Act, is unambiguous. That the onus of such an unsuccessful party to establish, prima facie, the ingredients of the triple test, is at a higher pedestal, in the post award situation than at the pre award scenario, is manifest."
Delhi High Court Sets Aside ₹8.15 Crore Award To Skipper Against Flowmore Over Prototype Inspection
Case Title Flowmore Limited v. M/s Skipper Limited
Case Number FAO(OS) (COMM) No. 31 of 2023
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 1184
The Delhi High Court on 28 October set aside an arbitral award of Rs. 8.15 crore in favour of Skipper Limited against Flowmore Limited, finding that the arbitrator's conclusions on prototype inspection and manufacturing clearance were unsupported by the evidence on record.
A Division Bench comprising Justices Avneesh Jhingan and Shail Jain held that an arbitral award can be set aside where the arbitrator's findings suffer from patent illegality, even though the scope of appellate interference under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, is limited. The judges held:
“The conclusion is on the basis that the appellant had granted mass production clearance for stubs, templates and towers and waived proto inspection. As discussed earlier there was neither a 'go-ahead' for mass production of towers nor the proto inspection of towers was waived.”
Case Title M/s S.R. Ashok & Associates v. Delhi Development Authority & Anr.
Case Number CS (OS) 361/2008 and CS (OS) 362/2008
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 1186
The Delhi High Court on 28 October dismissed Delhi Development Authority (DDA)'s objections to two arbitral awards of Rs. 30.91 lakh and Rs. 31.99 lakh in favour of S.R. Ashok & Associates in a housing construction dispute, including an award directing it to refund money recovered from the contractor under threat of blacklisting.
Justice Jasmeet Singh held that a payment made under threat of blacklisting cannot be treated as voluntary or as a settlement, particularly when the DDA failed to justify the recovery made more than nine years after the final construction bill. The Bench observed:
“Once the demand and the deposit are admitted, it was for the defendant No. 1 to justify the recovery but it adduced no material to do so. A deposit made under threat of blacklisting is also not voluntary, and the defendant No. 1 cannot treat it as a settlement. The Arbitrator was therefore entitled to direct a refund.”
Arbitral Tribunal Cannot Grant Interest Contrary To Express Terms Of Contract: Delhi High Court
Case Title MMTC Limited v. Aust Grain Exports Pty Ltd
Case Number FAO(OS) (COMM) No. 210 of 2023
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 1187
The Delhi High Court, on Wednesday, 28 October, held that an arbitral tribunal cannot award interest contrary to an express contractual provision excluding interest on a performance bank guarantee (PBG), as such an award conflicts with the contract and the public policy of India.
A Division Bench comprising Justices Avneesh Jhingan and Shail Jain set aside the arbitral award in favour of Aust Grain against Metals and Minerals Trading Corporation of India Limited (MMTC) to the limited extent that it granted interest on the performance bank guarantee (PBG). The judges held:
“…the tribunal rejected counter-claim no.2 for interest on the PBG but without reason or justification ultimately in concluding part of the award granted interest. In the peculiar facts of this case, without revisiting the facts or re-appreciating the evidence, the award of interest on the PBG is in conflict with the public policy of India and falls within the ambit of Section 34(2)(b)(ii) of the Act.”
Case Title Utracon Corporation Pte Ltd v. Ucon PT Structural System Private Limited & Ors.
Case Number CS(COMM) 661/2024
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 1189
The Delhi High Court has referred a trademark infringement and passing off suit filed by Singapore-based Utracon Corporation against its former Indian subsidiary, Ucon PT Structural System Private Limited, and other parties to arbitration.
The court held that a party cannot avoid arbitration merely by including a claim for relief that may not independently be arbitrable.
Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav observed that the dispute centred on the continued use of the trademark after the licence expired, rather than its registration or cancellation. The court held:
“The core of the suit is the post-term use of the marks by an ex-licensee and its affiliates. A party cannot avoid an arbitration agreement merely by adding a relief which, by itself, may not be arbitrable.”
Madras High Court
Madras High Court Stops Tamil Nadu Maritime Board From Prematurely Terminating Shop Licence
Case Title The PRG Shipping Private Limited v. Tamil Nadu Maritime Board & Anr.
Case Number Arb. Appln. Nos. 1268 and 1269 of 2026
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 327
The Madras High Court has recently restrained the Tamil Nadu Maritime Board from prematurely terminating a shop licence after it chose to allot the premises through negotiations despite the availability of an open tender process, only to seek fresh bids before the agreed tenure expired.
Justice K. Kumaresh Babu observed that the Board could not rely on a policy that was already available when it granted the original allotment as a reason to terminate the arrangement before its expiry.
“It is to be noted that the first respondent is a Statutory Authority being funded by the Government from the money of the public exchequer. Having taken a conscious decision to appoint the applicant as licensee and to terminate by a policy which was available even at the point of appointing cannot be a reason for termination,” the court held.
SBI Officers' Association Member's Removal Dispute Not Arbitrable Under Bye-Laws: Madras High Court
Case Title Mr.G.Ganapathy Vs State Bank of India Officers' Association
Case Number Arb Appln.No.1892 of 2026
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 323
The Madras High Court has ruled that the State Bank of India Officers' Association's bye-laws did not provide for arbitration of a dispute over the removal of a member from the Association's membership and elected post.
Justice K. Kumaresh Babu dismissed an application filed by former Regional Secretary G. Ganapathy seeking to stay the Association's July 28, 2026 order removing him from its Executive Committee and primary membership pending arbitration.
“When that being the interpretation, this Court is of the view that the applicant for resolving a dispute that arises out of his removal from membership of the association including his elected post cannot be subject matter of an arbitration, as there is no arbitration clause for resolving such a dispute,” the court observed.
Case Title Sun TV Network Limited v. M/s. Marina Holdings & Another
Case Number A. No. 1663 of 2026 in E.P. No. 122 of 2025
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 324
The Madras High Court has recently held that Sun TV Network Limited could not claim protection from attachment based on an unregistered guarantee and undertaking.
The court dismissed its application to release properties attached in proceedings initiated by Marina Holdings against N. Ramasamy, proprietor of Sri Thenandal Films.
Justice K. Kumaresh Babu observed that Section 64(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, requires the relevant contract for transfer or delivery to be registered before attachment to qualify for the statutory exception.
“It is true that a pre-existing right before an order of attachment can aid the benefit of holder of such pre-existing right over the order of attachment. But, however, Section 64 mandates that such a contract of transfer or delivery entered should have been registered before the attachment. Admittedly, in the present case, the deed of guarantee or the undertaking which are the relevant documents that have been claimed to vest a pre-existing right to the applicant are not registered documents.”, the court ruled.
Case Title A.V. Vijayakumar (Deceased) & Ors. v. The Director, M/s. Sharekhan Limited & Ors.
Case Number OSA No. 283 of 2021
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 316
The Madras High Court on 12 October held that Section 42 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, grants exclusive jurisdiction to the court where an application is first filed only if that court has jurisdiction under the arbitration agreement.
A Division Bench comprising Justices N. Sathish Kumar and G.K. Muthukumaar allowed an appeal filed by an investor, subsequently represented by his legal heirs, against Sharekhan Limited. It set aside a Single Judge's order dismissing the investor's challenge to an arbitral award for lack of jurisdiction and remanded the matter for consideration on merits. The judges held:
“We also find that, in circumstances where two Courts simultaneously have jurisdiction under the arbitration agreement, then it is only in such circumstances that the Court where the arbitral proceedings were first initiated will have jurisdiction and not the other court if any proceedings are subsequently initiated therein.”
Case Title : BGR Energy Systems Limited v. TUV SUD South Asia Private Limited
Case Number : Arbitration Appeal No. 131 of 2026 and CMP No. 27692 of 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 314
The Madras High Court has ruled that a party cannot seek arbitration in a commercial suit after forfeiting its right to file a written statement within the mandatory 120-day deadline, even if it is subsequently allowed to cross-examine witnesses.
A Division Bench of Justice N. Sathish Kumar and Justice G.K. Muthukumar held that allowing a party to participate in cross-examination does not permit it to bypass the statutory deadline by subsequently seeking reference to arbitration.
“Merely because the appellant was permitted to participate in the proceedings to cross-examine the plaintiff side witnesses, the appellant cannot take advantage of the same and use Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, as a procedural device to circumvent the mandatory time limit introduced by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015,” the Bench observed.
Case Title Radhe Krishna Infrastructure v. Larsen & Toubro
Case Number Arb. O.P. (Com. Div.) No. 111 of 2026
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 312
On 8 October, the Madras High Court constituted a three-member arbitral tribunal to resolve a Rs. 74.36 crore dispute between Larsen & Toubro and sub-contractor Radhe Krishna Infrastructure over the Rajkot Smart City project.
Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari held that determining whether a later work order superseded earlier contractual terms falls within the domain of the arbitral tribunal under Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Bench observed:
“Detailed examination of contractual supersession or the inter se priority of inter-related contractual documents is a matter that falls within the domain of the Arbitral Tribunal under Section 16 of the Act.”
Arbitration Requires Independent Decision-Maker And Parties' Consent To Be Bound: Madras High Court
Case Title BGR Energy Systems Pvt. Ltd vs Tamil Nadu General and DistributionCorporation
Case Number Arb.O.P.(Com.Div.) No. 157 of 2026
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 307
The Madras High Court on 8 October held that Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, cannot be used to constitute an arbitral tribunal when the parties have not agreed to arbitration, as the provision empowers an existing tribunal and presupposes an arbitration agreement.
Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari dismissed BGR Energy Systems' petition seeking appointment of a sole arbitrator to resolve contractual disputes with the Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation (TANGEDCO) over a Rs. 2,600.02 crore contract for the North Chennai Thermal Power Project Stage III. The Bench held:
“This court is unable to accept such submission. Section 16 of the Act empowers an Arbitral Tribunal that already exists. It assumes that there is an arbitration agreement under which a tribunal has been constituted. It cannot be used to bring a tribunal into being where the parties never agreed to arbitrate.”
Case Title Rajkumar Theatres Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s Wide Angle Creations & Ors.
Case Number OA (C.D.)No. 1050 of 2026
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 293
The Madras High Court has recently refused to restrain the worldwide release and exploitation of the Hindi remake of Malayalam film Drishyam 3, starring Ajay Devgn. It held that Rajkumar Theatres had not clearly established that it continued to hold an exclusive or joint copyright in the Hindi remake rights.
Justice K. Govindarajan Thilakavadi dismissed Rajkumar Theatres' application on October 1, 2026. The company had sought interim protection against the film's release pending arbitration.
The court noted that the injunction sought would, in substance, prevent the worldwide release and exploitation of the Hindi remake. It observed that such an order could have “serious consequences” for rights claimed by the respondents and third parties under subsequent arrangements.
The court found that Rajkumar had not placed sufficient material to establish its continuing rights in the Hindi remake.
“The material presently placed before this Court does not, at this interlocutory stage, establish with sufficient clarity that the applicant continues to possess an exclusive or joint copy right in the Hindi remake rights of 'Drishyam 3'.”
Case Title M. Jothi v. The Project Director, National Highways Authority of India & Others; Tmt. Ambika v. The Project Director, National Highways Authority of India & Others
Case Number CMA Nos. 2496 and 3140 of 2021
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 292
The Madras High Court has restored arbitral awards enhancing compensation for land acquired for a national highway, holding that the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) could not rely on a technical objection over notice despite having knowledge of the arbitration proceedings.
The court questioned why NHAI had remained a “lame duck” despite knowing about the proceedings and held that a public authority could not take such a technical ground to deny landowners their rights under Article 300A of the Constitution.
Justice K. Kumaresh Babu, allowing appeals filed by the landowners, M. Jothi and Ambika, set aside the Principal District Judge, Villupuram's January 11, 2021 order and affirmed the arbitral awards enhancing their compensation.
The court observed, “Having knowledge of the said proceedings before the Arbitrator, taking a technical ground to deny the rights envisaged under Article 300 A that too by a public authority could not be appreciated. The 1st respondent had not explained as to why it has remained a lame duck after having knowledge of the proceedings.”
Objections To Award Enforcement Cannot Be Used To Reopen Arbitral Award Findings: Madras High Court
Case Title M/s Reha Environ Private Limited & Anr. v. Government of Puducherry & Ors.
Case Number CRP Nos.5394, 5220 and 5221 of 2026
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 334
The Madras High Court has ruled that objections to the enforcement of an arbitral award cannot be used to reopen findings on the merits after the award has attained finality. This applies where the judgment debtors had an opportunity to challenge the award through the prescribed legal process.
A Single Bench of Justice P.B. Balaji made the observation while allowing a challenge by Reha Environ Private Limited and Puducherry Municipal Services Private Limited against restrictions imposed on the execution of an arbitral award arising from a municipal solid-waste management project in Puducherry.
The court observed, “A Section 47 petition cannot be an appeal or challenge under Section 34 of the Arbitration Conciliation Act in disguise. The objections that are taken in the present Section 47 Application, is one such a classic case, where having failed to challenge the award in a manner known to law, the judgment debtors are attempting to re-agitate the award findings on merits, by moving the Section 47 Application under the Civil Procedure Code.”
Karnataka High Court
Karnataka High Court Appoints Arbitrator In ₹2.53 Cr. Dispute Concerning Military Engineer Services
Case Title M/S VARSHA CONSTRUCTIONS vs CHIEF ENGINEER (AIR FORCE)
Case Number CIVIL MISC. PETITION NO. 150 OF 2026
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 199
The Karnataka High Court on 8 October appointed retired District Judge Prabhavathi Hiremath as the sole arbitrator to resolve contractual disputes between Varsha Constructions and the Military Engineer Services over the construction of an Academic Block at the Air Force Technical College in Jalahalli, Bengaluru.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice H.T. Narendra Prasad observed:
“Having regard to the existence of the arbitration clause contained in the Construction Agreement, which provides for resolution of disputes arising between the parties, and the fact that the petitioner has duly invoked the said arbitration clause by issuing notice under Section 21 of the Act, this Court is of the opinion that a Sole Arbitrator is required to be appointed for adjudication of the disputes between the parties.”
Case Title Regional Manager, IRCTC v. Amulya Enterprises & Others
Case Number Commercial Appeal No. 490 of 2024
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 200
The Karnataka High Court has recently ruled that a lawyer's assumption that judgment would be postponed cannot justify a delayed appeal. The failure to check whether the judgment was subsequently delivered remained unexplained.
Dismissing a commercial appeal filed by the Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation (IRCTC) against Amulya Enterprises, the court refused to condone a 92-day delay in challenging a Commercial Court decree dated June 11, 2024.
A Division Bench of Justice Anu Sivaraman and Justice T.P. Vivekananda, in a judgment dated October 9, 2026, observed:
“The fact that pronouncement had been adjourned on earlier occasions may account for counsel's impression on the date of judgment. It does not explain the failure to ascertain the result thereafter. The steps taken during that period to verify the status of the suit are not disclosed.”
Case Title Smt. T.S. Gomathi (Since Deceased), Represented by Smt. Padma v. M/s Capgemini Technology Services India Limited & Anr.
Case Number Commercial Appeal No. 362 of 2026
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 195
The Karnataka High Court on 16 September held that an arbitrator cannot interpret a contract in a manner that nullifies an independent right of termination expressly provided under its terms.
A Division Bench comprising Justices D.K. Singh and H. Shanthi Bhushan dismissed an appeal filed by Padma, the landlord's legal representative, and upheld the Bengaluru Commercial Court's decision to partly set aside an arbitral award against Capgemini Technology Services India Limited. It observed:
“Although the learned Sole Arbitrator was undoubtedly competent to interpret the terms of the Lease Deed, the interpretation adopted could not have the effect of effacing an express contractual provision.”
Arbitration Clause Requiring Fresh Mutual Consent Is Not Binding: Karnataka High Court
Case Title Riemen Solution Private Limited v. Swiggy Limited
Case Number Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 772 of 2025
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 192
The Karnataka High Court has refused to appoint an arbitrator in a dispute between Riemen Solution Private Limited and Swiggy Limited, holding that a contractual clause making arbitration conditional on fresh mutual consent does not constitute a binding arbitration agreement.
“The Court can neither delete these words from the Agreement, nor rewrite the bargain between the parties by converting a conditional reference to arbitration into an unconditional one,” Justice H T Narendra Prasad held while dismissing Riemen's petition.
The court was considering whether a clause requiring disputes to be referred to arbitration “if mutually agreed upon by the parties” constituted a valid arbitration agreement under Section 7 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Karnataka High Court Refuses To Interfere With ₹1.10 Crore Arbitral Award Against BHEL
Case Title BHARAT HEAVY ELECTRICALS LTD vs STERLING BIO ENERGY SYSTEMS PVT. LTD., & Ors
Case Number MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.1268 OF 2017
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 190
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited's (BHEL) appeal challenging an arbitral award directing it to pay ₹1.10 crore, along with 18% annual interest, to Sterling Bio Energy Systems for expenses incurred in connection with a pilot project.
The court held that no grounds for interference under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, had been made out.
A Division Bench of Justices Anu Sivaraman and Venkatesh Naik T refused to interfere with the judgment and decree of January 4, 2017 passed by the VI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City which dismissed the suit filed by Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited (BHEL).
"We find no sustainable grounds raised warranting interference under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed."
Karnataka High Court Upholds Forfeiture Of Developer's Advance After 7-Year JDA Delay
Case Title Sri Dilip C. & Anr. v. Smt. Diana D'Souza & connected matters
Case Number COMAP No. 290 of 2025 C/W COMAP Nos. 260/2025, 263/2025, 292/2025, 294/2025 & 305/2025
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 184
The Karnataka High Court on 22 September upheld the forfeiture of a developer's advance under an arbitral award after the developer failed to implement a Joint Development Agreement (JDA) for seven years.
A Division Bench of Justices D.K. Singh and H. Shanthi Bhushan dismissed the developers' appeal and allowed the landowner's appeal concerning a Bengaluru-based multistoried housing project, restoring the forfeiture portion of the arbitral award which the Commercial Court had set aside. The judges observed:
“Forfeiture of the advance paid by the developer who failed to carry out the obligation under the JDA for 7 long years, cannot be said to be such a direction in the award which would be in conflict with the public policy of India or in contravention with the fundamental policy of Indian law nor in conflict with the basic notion of morality and justice. We also do not find that the award is vitiated by patent illegality as provided under Section 34 (2)(a) of the Arbitration Act.”
Case Title: Vijaya Sharana Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. v. Office of Registrar of Cooperative Societies & Ors.
Case Number: WP No. 105206 of 2025 c/w WP Nos. 105173, 105207 & 105210 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(KAR) 183
The Karnataka High Court has held that arbitration under the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002 cannot be treated as invalid merely because no separate notice was issued under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum observed, “The absence of a separate notice under Section 21, in the circumstances pleaded in these petitions, does not by itself render the appointment of the learned Arbitrator under Section 84 of the MSCS Act invalid, nor does it extinguish the jurisdiction otherwise conferred upon the learned Arbitrator by the statutory scheme.”
The court was dealing with four writ petitions filed by four cold storage companies, Vijaya Sharana Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd., Sri Shyama Sundara Cold Storage, Sarveshwara Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd., and Jaya Sharana Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Case Title: Marudhara Primeinfra Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s Lahoty Buildcon Limited & Ors.
Case Number: S.B. Civil Writ Petition Nos. 19263/2026 & 18418/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(RAJ) 52
The Rajasthan High Court has held that an application seeking interim relief in aid of arbitration cannot be rejected at the threshold under Order VII Rule 11 merely on an objection that it covers two separate agreements containing separate arbitration clauses.
Justice Anand Sharma observed, “The question whether two agreements are wholly independent or are interrelated is not necessarily capable of determination merely by looking at the title of the agreements or the fact that they contain separate arbitration clauses. The contractual scheme, nature of obligations, interdependence, subject matter and the interim relief sought may all become relevant. Consequently, it would be inappropriate at this stage for this Court, in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to record a final finding on that controversy when the competent Court has consciously kept it open.”
Patna High Court
Writ Court Cannot Appoint Arbitrator Where Contract Mandates Statutory Mechanism: Patna High Court
Case Title Principal Secretary-cum-Commissioner, Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Bihar & Anr. v. M/s Mahadev Enclave Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Case Number Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 287 of 2026
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC(PAT)31
The Patna High Court on 29 September held that a writ court cannot appoint an arbitrator under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 when the parties' agreement provides for resolution of disputes through a statutory arbitration mechanism.
A Division Bench comprising Justices Sudhir Singh and Rajesh Kumar Verma set aside the Single Judge's order appointing a sole arbitrator in a dispute between Bihar's Mines and Geology Department and Mahadev Enclave Pvt. Ltd., noting that Clause 9 of the Standard Bid Document required the dispute to be resolved under the Bihar Public Works Disputes Arbitration Tribunal Act, 2008. The judges stated:
“From a bare perusal of the aforesaid Clause, it transpires that the dispute between the parties are to be resolved under the Bihar Public Works Disputes Arbitration Tribunal Act, 2008, apart from the aforesaid, the learned Writ Court has no power to appoint Arbitrator and Clause 9 of the Standard Bid Document has binding force between the parties.”
Calcutta High Court
Case Title LEISURE COUNTRY CLUB AND RESORTS PRIVATE LIMITED VS ASIM KUMAR RAY AND ANR
Case Number AP 406 OF 2021
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 261
The Calcutta High Court has ruled that arbitration proceedings cannot affect orders passed by consumer forums, clarifying that developers can pursue independent contractual claims through arbitration even after consumers have chosen the statutory remedy.
"Nothing done in arbitration can affect an order of a consumer forum, which may be challenged or enforced only under the consumer legislation. Any award remains subject to Section 34 of the Act," Justice Gaurang Kanth observed.
The court clarified that while a developer cannot force consumers to arbitrate their grievances against their choice of forum, it can pursue independent claims that the consumer forum has no jurisdiction to decide.
Case Title Friends Engineering Co-operative Society Limited Vs. Digha Shankarpur Development Authority
Case Number AO-COM NO. 40 of 2026
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 260
The Calcutta High Court has recently held that an appellate court can examine grounds challenging an arbitral award that were raised before the lower court but left undecided, provided they are available on the arbitral record.
A Division Bench of Justices Debangsu Basak and Aryak Dutt set aside the District Judge, Purba Medinipur's March 12, 2019 order quashing an arbitral award in favour of Friends Engineering Co-operative Society Limited and also set aside the award dated February 14, 2014.
"The grounds under Section 34 are on record. A respondent in appeal may support the result on a ground urged below that the lower court did not decide. An Appeal Court under Section 37 can therefore examine the grounds on the arbitral record.", the Court held.
Calcutta High Court Conditionally Stays Shapoorji Pallonji Award Against West Bengal Housing Board
Case Title West Bengal Housing Board v. M/s Shapoorji Pallonji and Company Private Limited
Case Number AP-COM/188/2026
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 254
The Calcutta High Court on 31 August conditionally stayed an arbitral award dated 13 September 2025 in favour of Shapoorji Pallonji and Company Private Limited against the West Bengal Housing Board, and directed the Board to secure the entire awarded amount within eight weeks.
Justice Gaurang Kanth also directed the Housing Board to deposit 50% of the awarded amount, along with up-to-date interest, in cash and secure the remaining 50% through a bank guarantee. Holding that this arrangement would balance the financial interests of both parties, the Bench observed:
“Considering the submissions made by both sides and keeping in mind the balance of convenience and equity between the parties, this Court is of the view that the awarded amount ought to be secured by way of 50% cash deposit and 50% bank guarantee.”
Case Title Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Vs. Joysri Sengupta & Anr.
Case Number FMAT No. 219 of 2021
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 247
The Calcutta High Court has held that a new plea which depends on facts cannot be raised for the first time in an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to impeach an arbitral award.
The Court therefore said that BSNL could not raise for the first time in appeal its plea under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, challenge the validity of the lease of the premises used for its telephone exchange.
A Division Bench of Justices Debangsu Basak and Aryak Dutt dismissed Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited's (BSNL) appeal against the March 16, 2020 order of the Additional District Judge at Barasat which had rejected BSNL's challenge to an arbitral award dated May 13, 2016.
"In the memorandum of appeal, the appellant has questioned the validity of the lease and relied on Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. This plea was not raised before the learned Arbitrator. As far as the impugned judgment shows, it was not raised before the learned Court below. A new plea which depends on facts cannot be raised for the first time in an appeal under Section 37 to impeach an award.", the Court held.
Calcutta High Court Upholds ₹24.30 Lakh Award To Contractor After Union Failed To Provide Site
Case Title UNION OF INDIA VS. M/S K.P. TRADING AND COMPANY
Case Number FMAT(ARBAWARD)/2/2026
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 243
On 5 October, the Port Blair Circuit Bench of the Calcutta High Court upheld an arbitral award of Rs. 24.30 lakh in favour of K.P. Trading and Company, holding that the award of loss of profit was supported by the material on record and did not warrant interference.
Justices Madhuresh Prasad and Prasenjit Biswas dismissed the Union of India's appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, against the 15 September 2017 arbitral award and the Additional District Judge's order upholding it. The Division Bench observed:
“We do not find the award of the arbitrator to be suffering from any lack of reasoning, absence of any material in support of the claim, or any infirmity in the above noted facts and circumstances, to arrive at a conclusion regarding the amount to be quantified towards loss of profit. We therefore find no reason to interfere with the award of the sole arbitrator or the order passed by the Court considering the appeal under Section 34 of the 1996 Act.”