Setting Aside Of Arbitral Award Does Not Automatically Remand Matter To Arbitrator: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court recently held that once an arbitral award is set aside under Section 34 of 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...

Supreme Court Refuses To Interfere With Bombay High Court Ruling In Vedanta–Sunflag LAM Coke Arbitration Dispute

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...

Arbitration Not Available Under WB Premises Requisition Act After Requisition Lapses: Calcutta High Court

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. Dismissing the writ petition,...

Delhi High Court Declines Interference With Arbitral Award In TDI-DMRC Advertising Rights Dispute

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...

Delhi High Court Dismisses UOI Challenge To ₹32.76 Crore Arbitral Award For Varindera As Time-Barred

The Delhi High Court recently dismissed the Union's challenge to a Rs. 32.76-crore arbitral award in favour of Varindera Constructions Limited. The Court held that the initial petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) was non-est filing and could not halt the running of limitation. A Bench comprising Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar in a judgement dated 27 February observed that courts lack jurisdiction to condone delay beyond the...

Delhi High Court Stays Encashment of Conditional Bank Guarantees, Says Invocation Prima Facie Extra-Contractual

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...

Supreme Court Dismisses SpiceJet Challenge To ₹144.51 Crore Deposit Order In Dispute With Kalanithi Maran

Calling it “an abuse of the process,” the Supreme Court on Friday refused to interfere with a Delhi High Court order directing SpiceJet Limited and its Chairman Ajay Singh to deposit Rs 144,51,69,887 in their long-running arbitration dispute with former promoter Kalanithi Maran and Kal Airways Pvt. Ltd. Dismissing the Special Leave Petitions with costs of Rs 1 lakh, the bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe observed, “We are not inclined to interfere with the...

Delhi High Court Partly Sets Aside Arbitral Award Against Airports Authority Of India Over Limitation

The Delhi High Court has recently partly set aside an arbitral award against the Airports Authority of India, holding that claims not raised or specifically reserved in the contractor's 1999 correspondence could not be sustained years later in arbitration. Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar ruled that limitation may extend only to claims expressly articulated or reserved. It cannot apply to claims that were never mentioned in the relevant correspondence. “Merely because certain objections in...

LiveLawBiz Arbitration Weekly Digest: February 23 - February 28, 2026

Nominal Index BWL Limited (formerly Bhilai Wires Ltd.) v. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, 2026 LLBiz SC 81Vedanta Limited (Cairn Oil and Gas Division) v. Gujarat State Petroleum Corporation Ltd., 2026 LLBiz SC 89Union of India & Ors. v. Larsen & Toubro Limited, 2026 LLBiz SC 97M/s Telexcell Information Systems Limited v. Tata Advanced Systems Limited, 2026 LLBiz HC (Del) 177Divya Ashish Jamwal v. India Yamaha Motor Pvt Ltd., 2026 LLBiz HC (Del) 189Geniemode Global Pvt. Ltd. v....

Karnataka High Court Refuses New Arbitrator After Award, Says Fresh Appointment Would Reopen Proceedings

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...

Contracts Terminable For Breach With Cure Period Not Determinable: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has recently observed that a contract which permits termination only for material breach and subject to a mandatory cure period is not “in its nature determinable” under Section 14(d) of the Specific Relief Act. Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar stayed the operation and effect of the termination notice dated January 2, 2026, issued by Pushpawati Singhania Research Institute (PSRI) to Mahajan Imaging Pvt Ltd. He also directed both sides to maintain status quo until the...

Sole Arbitrator May Be Appointed To Reduce Costs Despite Three-Member Clause: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has held that where an arbitration clause provides for a three-member tribunal but the parties fail to appoint arbitrators, the Court can appoint a sole arbitrator if a party seeks it to reduce costs. Justice Subhash Vidyarthi held “although the arbitration agreement contained provision for constituting a panel of three arbitrators – one arbitrator to be appointed by each of the parties and the third arbitrator or the umpire being appointed by the two...