Nominal Index
Vedanta Limited v. Sunflag Iron & Steel Company Limited, 2026 LLBiz SC 100
TDI International India Ltd v. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation, 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 212
Renaissance Buildcon Company Pvt Ltd & Ors. v. Tarjinder Kumar Bansal & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 234
Khurana Educational Society (Regd.) v. Smt. Shashi Bala, 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 236
Sadguru Engineers And Allied Services Pvt Ltd v. National Highways Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 211
Exelixi Management Company Pvt. Ltd. v. Nishi Retails Pvt. Ltd., 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 108
Satnam Singh Ahuja & Ors. v. Karvy Financial Services Ltd., 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 114
M/s Space Master Realtors v. Mulund Sandhyaprakash CHS Ltd. & Anr., 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 117
Polimer Media Pvt Ltd v. Ultra Media and Entertainment Pvt Ltd, 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 112
Raghavan V.T. v. Union of India & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC (KER) 37
Manappuram Asset Finance Ltd. v. Abdul Saleem A.B. & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC (KER) 47
Aditya Almal & Anr. v. The First Land Acquisition Collector, Kolkata & Anr., 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 62
Ssv Developers And Ors. v. Sunder S/O. Premraj Jotwani And Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 23
Supreme Court
Case Title : Vedanta Limited vs Sunflag Iron & Steel Company Limited
Case Number : Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 7569/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 100
The Supreme Court recently declined to interfere with a judgment of the Bombay High Court dismissing Vedanta Ltd's writ petition challenging an arbitral order in its dispute with Sunflag Iron & Steel Co. Ltd over the purchase and supply of LAM Coke. The court also imposed costs of Rs 5 lakh on the company.
A Bench of Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Alok Aradhe dismissed Vedanta's special leave petition, observing:
“We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court. The special leave petition is, however, dismissed with costs quantified at Rs 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five lakhs) which shall be paid to 'Supreme Court Advocate-on-Record Association (SCAORA)' within two weeks from today.”
Delhi High Court
Delhi High Court Declines Interference With Arbitral Award In TDI-DMRC Advertising Rights Dispute
Case Title : TDI International India Ltd Versus Delhi Metro Rail Corporation
Case Number : O.M.P. (COMM) 69/2017
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 212
The Delhi High Court on 24 February dismissed a petition filed by TDI International India Ltd., challenging an arbitral award in a dispute with Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC), holding that no grounds existed for interference under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act).
Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar observed:
“...the grant of an ad hoc remission of 50% of the licence fee for the uninstalled area represents an exercise of contractual interpretation and factual appreciation. This Court is unable to hold that such an approach is perverse or patently illegal, or that it contravenes the public policy of India.”
Case Title : Renaissance Buildcon Company Pvt Ltd & Ors. v. Tarjinder Kumar Bansal & Ors.
Case Number : CONT.CAS (C) 802/2021
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 234
The Delhi High Court on 5 February held that parties cannot bypass the arbitral process by approaching the High Court directly for alleged violation of an interim order passed by an arbitral tribunal. Any contempt proceedings must follow the procedural framework under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Justice Saurabh Banerjee dismissed a contempt petition filed by Renaissance Buildcon Company Pvt Ltd and its directors, while noting that the respondents, Tarjinder Kumar Bansal and other former directors and associated persons, were accused of breaching the arbitral tribunal's interim orders.
The Bench held:
“Since the interim order dated 18.07.2015 was passed by the learned Sole Arbitrator under Section 17(1) of the A&C Act in the course of the arbitral proceedings, the petitioners cannot approach this Court by way of the present petition for any contempt thereof. The appropriate remedy under Section 27(5) of the A&C Act would lie before the learned Sole Arbitrator, who upon satisfaction, may make a reference for contempt before this Court.”
Case Title : Khurana Educational Society (Regd.) Versus Smt. Shashi Bala
Case Number : ARB. A. (COMM.) 71/2025 & I.A. 32778/2025 (Stay)
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 236
The Delhi High Court has observed that interim relief under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is meant to preserve the fruits of arbitration and cannot be used to secure a claimant against speculative future contingencies.
Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar in a judgment delivered on February 26, observed:
“Section 17 of the A&C Act is designed to preserve the fruits of arbitration where a real and imminent risk is established; it is not intended to secure a claimant against speculative future contingencies. The record does not disclose any material indicating dissipation of assets, imminent frustration of enforcement, or any circumstance warranting such intrusive financial directions."
Case Title : Sadguru Engineers And Allied Services Pvt Ltd Versus National Highways Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd Represented By Its Managing Director & Ors.
Case Number : O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 18/2026 & I.A. 1378/2026 (Ex.)
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 211
The Delhi High Court has held that a determinable contract cannot be protected against termination. However, interim relief under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 can be granted to stay encashment of conditional bank guarantees if the proposed invocation is prima facie not traceable to the contract.
Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar passed the order in a petition filed by Sadguru Engineers and Allied Services Pvt Ltd against National Highways Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd.
"The raison d'être of Section 9 of the A&C Act is to preserve and protect the subject matter of the dispute in the interregnum, so that the arbitral proceedings, when commenced, are not rendered nugatory. The power vested with the Courts under Section 9 is thus essentially protective and facilitative in character, intended to safeguard and secure the efficacy of the arbitral process and not to supplant it", the court observed
Bombay High Court
Case Title : Exelixi Management Company Pvt. Ltd. v. Nishi Retails Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : Arbitration Petition No. 141 of 2018
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 108
The Bombay High Court has recently refused to set aside an ex-parte arbitral award arising out of a commercial toy retail franchise dispute, holding that the absence of a physical signature on a contract would not invalidate the arbitrator's finding that an arbitration agreement existed, particularly where correspondence between the parties indicated reliance on the agreement.
A single bench of Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan observed that “the absence of an actual physical signature would not come in the way of the reasonableness of the arbitrator's findings. Exchange of correspondence too can constitute an arbitration agreement”.
Case Title : Satnam Singh Ahuja And Ors. Versus Karvy Financial Services Ltd.
Case Number : ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 324 OF 2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 114
The Bombay High Court has recently reiterated that arbitral awards passed by an arbitrator unilaterally appointed by one party are liable to be set aside and that such illegality cannot be cured merely because the opposing party participated in the arbitration proceedings without raising an objection.
Applying the Supreme Court's recent ruling in Bhadra International (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Airports Authority of India, the court further reiterated that waiver of an arbitrator's ineligibility under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is permissible only through an express written agreement executed after the dispute arises and cannot be inferred from a party's conduct or participation in proceedings.
Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan held, “Evidently, the vice of unilateral appointment of an Arbitrator is not curable by uncontested participation in the arbitration proceedings. Evidently, equity would not supplant the law, and there is no scope for supplementing the law declared on the anvil of uncontested participation before the unilaterally appointed arbitrator.”
Case Title : M/s Space Master Realtors v. Mulund Sandhyaprakash CHS Ltd. & Anr.
Case Number : Arbitration Application (L) No. 35545 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 117
The Bombay High Court recently refused to appoint an arbitrator in a dispute arising out of a housing redevelopment project in Mumbai, holding that a dissenting flat owner who had deliberately refused to sign the development agreement could not be compelled to arbitrate claims brought by the developer.
Justice Sandeep V. Marne observed that arbitration is founded on consent and that the mere fact that redevelopment arrangements involve multiple interconnected agreements cannot bind a non-signatory to an arbitration clause.
The court said, “A member who dissents from the decision taken by the society and refuses to sign the Development Agreement, but is forced to act in terms of DA by application of principle of loss of individuality vis-à-vis society, cannot be treated as a veritable party to the DA and particularly to the arbitration agreement contained therein."
Bombay High Court Upholds Arbitral Award In Polimer-Ultra Media 'Jai Hanuman' License Fee Dispute
Case Title : Polimer Media Pvt Ltd vs Ultra Media and Entertainment Pvt Ltd
Case Number : ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 215 OF 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 112
The Bombay High Court on 5 March upheld an arbitral award directing Polimer Media Pvt Ltd to pay Rs. 30.45 lakh to Ultra Media and Entertainment Pvt Ltd in a dispute arising from a broadcasting license agreement for the television serial “Jai Hanuman.”
A Bench of Justice Gauri Godse held that the arbitral award did not warrant interference under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
The Court observed:
“Hence, in my view, by applying the standards as set out in the various decisions as discussed above, the arbitral award cannot be interfered with under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. The petition is therefore dismissed.”
Kerala High Court
Case Title : Raghavan V.T. v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : WP(C) No. 32088 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (KER) 37
The Kerala High Court recently held that once an arbitral award is set aside under Section 34of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the matter cannot be treated as remanded to the arbitrator unless a party had sought recourse to Section 34(4) during the pendency of the challenge proceedings.
Justice C. Jayachandran, rejected the National Highways Authority of India's (NHAI) plea of “implicit remand” finding that no such request had ever been made and that the District Court had merely set aside the award, and granted it 45 days to seek review.
The Bench observed:
“In the instant case, recourse to Section 34(4) has not been made by any of the parties. This Court takes stock of the fact that the learned District Judge has merely set aside the Award, without mentioning or referring anything about the remand or remit, presumably for the reason that there exists no such power.”
Case Title : Manappuram Asset Finance Ltd. v. Abdul Saleem A.B. & Ors.
Case Number : AR Nos. 16, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (KER) 47
The Kerala High Court has recently held that when an arbitral award is declared unenforceable during execution proceedings, the legal effect is akin to the award being set aside, and fresh arbitral proceedings can be initiated only after issuing a fresh notice invoking arbitration under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
“Once the arbitral award is declared as unenforceable/nullity in the eye of law by a competent court, even during execution proceedings, the impact of such a finding is akin to that of setting aside an award. The outcome remains the same. The award loses its legal sanctity, becomes inoperative and loses all its force. Under such circumstances, also, declaration of law in M/s.Agro Indus Credits Limited would squarely apply. Therefore, if the execution court finds that an arbitral award is unenforceable and invalid for any reason, in order to initiate fresh arbitral proceedings, it is essential to make a fresh request/issue fresh notice as contemplated under Section 21 of the Act, 1996,” the Court observed.
Madras High Court
Works Contract Payment Dispute Can Proceed In MSME Arbitration: Madras High Court
Case Title : Chennai Petroleum Corporation Limited v. Micro and Small Enterprises
Case Number : CRP No. 3446 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 60
The Madras High Court has refused to interfere with an order of the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council rejecting a Section 16 jurisdictional objection, holding that a payment claim arising from services under a civil works contract falls within the scope of the MSMED Act and can be adjudicated in arbitration before the Council.
Justice S. Sounthar observed that while courts ordinarily do not intervene when an Arbitral Tribunal rejects a jurisdictional objection, this case required scrutiny as Chennai Petroleum Corporation Limited had questioned the very applicability of the MSME law itself. The Court noted:
“In normal course, this Court would not have entertained the Civil Revision Petition and relegated the parties to workout the remedy under Section 34 of Arbitration Act, in view of Section 16(6) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The very applicability of MSMED Act for the claim made by the second respondent is questioned… and the same is going to the root of the matter.”
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case Title : JPR Projects Versus Axis Bank
Case Number : COMMERCIAL COURT APPEAL No. 21of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(APH) 22
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has recently declined to interfere with an order granting limited interim relief against the freezing of a partnership firm's bank account, observing that the protection had already lapsed after the firm failed to initiate arbitral proceedings within 90 days.
A division bench of Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Maheswara Rao Kuncheamobserved that the interim relief granted by the Special Judge for Trial and Disposal of Commercial Disputes at Visakhapatnam was expressly limited to a period of 90 days, and the appellants had invoked arbitration only after that period had expired.
“From the admitted facts on record it is evident that within a period of 90 days the arbitral proceedings were not commenced in terms of Sub-section (2) of Section 9 of the Act 1996. Notice under Section 21, sent to the respondents, is dated 07.11.2025 which is after the expiry of the period of 90 days from the date of the impugned Order.”
Calcutta High Court
Case Title : Aditya Almal & Anr. v. The First Land Acquisition Collector, Kolkata & Anr.
Case Number : WPO 1531 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 62
The Calcutta High Court has recently refused to appoint an Arbitrator to determine compensation for the period from April 1, 1992 to January 12, 2023, during which the Kolkata Municipal Corporation (KMC) continued to occupy a private property after expiry of requisition, holding that once the requisition ended, the statutory arbitration mechanism under the West Bengal Premises Requisition and Control (Temporary Provision) Act, 1947, could no longer be invoked.
“The rent compensation for a premises cannot be fixed by the Arbitrator under Section 11(1)(b) of the 1947 Act during the period the property continues to remain with the State without any authority of law,” the Court observed, concluding that “no direction can be passed upon the State Government to appoint an Arbitrator under Section 11(1)(b) of the 1947 Act for determination of compensation for the period from April 1, 1992 till January 12, 2023.”, it said.
Karnataka High Court
Case Title : Ssv Developers And Ors. Versus Sunder S/O. Premraj Jotwani And Ors.
Case Number : Civil Misc Petition No.100026 Of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 23
The Karnataka High Court has recently refused to appoint a substitute arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act after an award had already been passed and the matter was remanded only for a limited purpose, holding that such reconstitution would effectively reopen concluded arbitral proceedings.
Dismissing a plea filed by SSV Developers and its Managing Partner Vijaykumar Krishnasa Kabadi, Justice Lalitha Kanneganti held that once an award is passed and the case is remanded only for limited cross-examination and defence evidence, a fresh arbitrator cannot be appointed, particularly when the petitioners failed to comply with the District Court's direction to pay arbitral costs.
“The power to appoint another Arbitrator ordinarily arises when the mandate of the existing Arbitrator terminates during the course of arbitral proceedings. However, the present case stands on a different footing,” the court observed.