LiveLawBiz Arbitration Weekly Digest: 1st March- 8th March, 2026

Nominal IndexVedanta Limited v. Sunflag Iron & Steel Company Limited, 2026 LLBiz SC 100TDI International India Ltd v. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation, 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 212Renaissance Buildcon Company Pvt Ltd & Ors. v. Tarjinder Kumar Bansal & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 234Khurana Educational Society (Regd.) v. Smt. Shashi Bala, 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 236Sadguru Engineers And Allied Services Pvt Ltd v. National Highways Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC...

Madras High Court Allows Enforcement Of Foreign Arbitral Award Against Non-Signatory That Issued Cheque As Security For Claim

The Madras High Court has allowed enforcement of a foreign arbitral award against a group company after noting that it had voluntarily issued a cheque as security for the disputed demurrage claim arising from a shipping contract. A division bench of Justice C.V. Karthikeyan and Justice K. Kumaresh Babu observed that by issuing the cheque as security for the award amount, the company had effectively undertaken to satisfy the award if the charterer failed to do so. It therefore could not avoid...

Interim Relief Under Arbitration Act Cannot Supplant Execution Proceedings: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court recently observed that a petition seeking interim relief under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act cannot be used as a substitute for execution proceedings under the Civil Procedure Code. “An application under Section 9 can supplement but cannot supplant the process of execution contemplated through Order XXI of the Code,” Justice N. Anand Venkatesh said. The court explained that although a Section 9 petition may remain maintainable until an arbitral award...

Writ Not Maintainable Against MSME Council Award When Remedy Exists Under Arbitration Act: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court has reiterated that a writ petition challenging an arbitral award passed by a Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council cannot ordinarily be entertained when the aggrieved party has an effective statutory remedy under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. A single bench of Justice V. Lakshminarayanan observed that parties cannot invoke writ jurisdiction under Article 226 to set aside such awards when the arbitration statute itself provides a mechanism...

Courts Cannot Re-Examine Merits Of Foreign Arbitral Awards At Enforcement Stage: Bombay High Court Reiterates

The Bombay High Court has reiterated that courts considering enforcement of foreign arbitral awards under Section 48 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 cannot re-examine the merits of the award or undertake a fresh evaluation of the evidence. A single-judge bench of Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan observed that the jurisdiction of an enforcement court under Section 48 is limited and does not permit a review of the arbitral tribunal's findings. “The scope of jurisdiction of the Section...

LiveLawBiz Arbitration Monthly Digest: February 2026

Nominal IndexR. Savithri Naidu v. The Cotton Corporation of India Ltd. & Anr., 2026 LLBiz SC 66Aspek Media Pvt Ltd & Ors. vs Entertainment City Ltd, 2026 LLBiz SC 68Rashtriya Chemicals & Fertilisers Ltd vs Thermax Ltd, 2026 LLBiz SC 70Asad Mueed & Ors. vs Jamia Hamdard Deemed to Be University, 2026 LLBiz SC 65Talwandi Sabo Power Ltd vs Punjab State Power Corporation, 2026 LLBiz SC 72A2Z Infraservices Ltd & Anr vs Quippo Infrastructure Ltd & Ors, 2026 LLBiz SC 60National...

Dissenting Flat Owner Not Bound By Arbitration Clause In Redevelopment Agreement He Refused To Sign: Bombay High Court

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...

Participation Cannot Cure Ineligibility: Bombay High Court Sets Aside Awards By Unilaterally Appointed Arbitrator

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...

Arbitral Award Declared Unenforceable During Execution Proceedings Is Akin To Being Set Aside: Kerala High Court

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. Closing a batch of arbitration requests as premature, a single bench of Justice S. Manu said that once an award is declared a nullity by a competent...

Bombay High Court Upholds Arbitral Award In Polimer-Ultra Media 'Jai Hanuman' License Fee Dispute

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...

Arbitral Tribunal's Interim Relief Meant To Preserve Arbitration, Not Secure Speculative Claims: Delhi High Court

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...

Interim Protection Lapses As Arbitration Invoked After 90 Days: Andhra Pradesh High Court Denies Firm Relief

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 Kuncheam observed that the interim relief granted by the Special Judge for Trial and Disposal of Commercial Disputes at Visakhapatnam was...