Clause In Insurance Policy Shortening Limitation Period Is Void U/S 28 Contract Act: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court restored an arbitral award in favor of M/s H.P. Spinning Mills Pvt. Ltd.(Appellant) which was set aside 16 years ago holding that clause of the insurance policy which required claims to be made within 12 months from the date of loss was void and unforceable under section 28 of the Indian Contract Act. The court held that the Single Judge erred in relying on section 28 pre-amendment precedents which allowed limitation clauses that extinguished rights. A bench...

'Higher Credence Is Given To Award Passed After Detailed Pre-Arbitral Process': Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court has held that arbitral awards passed after a detailed pre-arbitral process contractually agreed upon by the parties deserve a higher degree of credibility and judicial deference. The Court refused to grant an unconditional stay on the execution of an arbitral award in favour of the contractor, holding that mere disagreement with the arbitral tribunal's findings does not establish perversity warranting such relief.Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan was hearing an application...

CA-Certified Audited Statements Are Valid Proof Of Actual Expenditure: Delhi High Court Partly Upholds Arbitral Award Against NHAI

The Delhi High Court dismissed a petition under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) filed by National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) against an arbitral award passed in favor of Hindustan Construction Company Ltd. (HCC). The court further held that the arbitrator's award of compensation for expenses incurred during extended time period was reasoned, plausible and did not suffer from perversity or patent illegality. Justice Jasmeet Singh held...

'Unrelated Party To Contract Cannot Be Regarded As Veritable Party To Arbitration Agreement': Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court has held that an unrelated third party to a contract cannot be treated as a “veritable party” to the arbitration agreement and hence cannot be compelled to participate in the arbitral proceedings. The Court reiterated that the doctrine enabling non-signatories to be treated as parties to an arbitration agreement applies only where there exists a close relationship, such as within a group of companies, or where there is an alter ego or composite transaction linking the...

Arbitration Quarterly Digest: July-September 2025

Supreme Court Clause Saying Arbitration "May Be Sought" Doesn't Constitute A Binding Arbitration Agreement : Supreme Court Cause Title: BGM AND M-RPL-JMCT (JV) VERSUS EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 731 The Supreme Court recently held that a clause in an agreement that arbitration "may be sought" to resolve disputes between the parties will not constitute a binding arbitration agreement. Approving the refusal of the High Court to refer the parties to...

'Big Corporations Must Adopt Reasonable Litigation Policy Against Small Enterprises': Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court dismissed an appeal under section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) filed by Mahindra Defence Systems Ltd. challenging an arbitral award passed by the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Facilitation Council in favour of Rajana Industries holding that the award was reasoned, fair and free from perversity. Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan while upholding concurrent findings of the District Judge and the Council observed that industry...

Application U/S 29A Of A&C Act Is Not Maintainable After Termination Of Proceedings Following Arbitrator's Withdrawal: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court held that section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) can be invoked only when the proceedings are pending. It cannot be invoked when the arbitral tribunal has become functus officio. Justice N. Anand Venkatesh held that “in the case in hand, the proceedings were abandoned and consequently stood terminated as was explained supra. Thereafter, there is no question of filing an application seeking for extension of time for a...

Lease Renewal Disputes With PSU's Are Arbitrable If Not Related To Eviction Under Public Premises Act: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court held that renewal of lease agreements with public sector undertakings are arbitrable and such disputes are not prohibited under Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (PP Act) when lessee continues in possession lawfully and the rent is being accepted by the lessor. Accordingly, the present application under section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) seeking appointment of a sole arbitrator was allowed. ...

Mutually Contradictory Findings By Same Arbitrator At Different Stage Of Proceedings Renders Final Award Patently Illegal: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court held that declaring earlier proceedings non est, even when no objections were raised regarding the recording of the undertaking in those proceedings, constituted a perverse finding. The Court observed that such proceedings, which merely recorded an undertaking, could not fall within the ambit of Section 31 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) as they did not amount to an order. Raising this issue suo motu was held to be a violation of the...

Objections U/S 47 CPC Can't Be Entertained In Enforcement Of Arbitral Awards U/S 36 Of A&C Act: Orissa High Court

The Orissa High Court has recently held that objections under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure ('CPC') cannot be allowed to be raised in the enforcement proceeding of an arbitral award, as enunciated under the provision of Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ('A & C Act').While bringing clarity as to applicability of Section 47 of CPC to arbitral proceedings, a Bench of Dr. Justice Sanjeeb Kumar Panigrahi held –“Allowing objections under Section 47 of the CPC,...

Mere Correction Of Typographical Error In Arbitral Award Does Not Extend Limitation Period For Plea U/S 34(3) Of A&C Act: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court held that mere correction of typographical error does not extend the period limitation for filing a petition under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act). The court further held that the limitation period begins from the date of disposal of an application under section 33 of the Arbitration Act and not from the date when a signed corrected copy of the award is received by the party. A bench comprising Justice Prathiba M. Singh and...

Performance Of Every Contract Would Be Jeopardised If Partial Breakdown Of Machinery Is Considered 'Force Majeure' Event: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court partly set aside an arbitral award which directed the National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT) to refund of Rs. 2 crore to M/s Murli Industries Ltd. holding that the finding of the arbitrator that breakdown of a machinery constituted a force majeure event cannot be sustained. The court however upheld the arbitrator's finding that the time was not the essence of the contract and therefore the NCERT was not justified to forfeit the performance...