ARBITRATION
Absence Of Bank Guarantee No Ground To Deny Interim Relief In Redevelopment Arbitration: Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court has held that the absence of a bank guarantee under the Maharashtra government's redevelopment guidelines, by itself, cannot invalidate a housing society redevelopment project or justify refusing interim relief under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Holding so, the court observed, "Once this Court has already held that furnishing of bank guarantee under the Government Resolution is recommendatory and not mandatory, mere absence of a bank guarantee cannot make...
Emergency Relief Under Foreign Arbitration Rules Does Not Bar Interim Relief By Indian Courts: Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court has recently held that the availability of emergency or interim relief under the rules of a foreign arbitral institution does not, by itself, prevent Indian courts from granting interim protection in support of a foreign-seated arbitration. It observed that merely choosing institutional rules that provide for emergency measures is not enough to exclude the court's jurisdiction. Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan made the ruling while directing Turkish company Uzer Makina VE...
Party Cannot Revive Contention Omitted Earlier Through Fresh Plea In Same Dispute: Gujarat High Court
The Gujarat High Court on 29 June held that a party cannot revive an issue through a fresh application after failing to raise an available contention at the appropriate stage, holding that such an attempt is barred by the principles of constructive res judicata, waiver and finality of litigation. Justice Niral R. Mehta dismissed a petition filed by JWIL Infra Ltd. (formerly JITF Water Infrastructure Ltd.) under Article 227 of the Constitution and upheld the arbitral tribunal's order refusing to...
Non-Signatory Cannot Be Compelled To Arbitrate Merely For Claiming Through Signatory: Bombay HIgh Court
The Bombay High Court has recently held that a non-signatory cannot be compelled to arbitrate merely because it is alleged to be claiming "through or under" a signatory to an arbitration agreement. Emphasising that arbitration is founded on consent, the court observed, "Since consent forms the cornerstone of arbitration, a non-signatory cannot be forcibly made a 'party' to an arbitration agreement, as doing so would violate sacrosanct principles of privity of contract and party autonomy." ...
Karnataka High Court Rejects Ex-Director's Objection To Settlement With NHAI After Company's Liquidation
The Karnataka High Court has declined to entertain an objection by an erstwhile director of A.L. Sudershan Construction Co. Ltd. against a settlement with the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) over an arbitral award The court observed that the company was under liquidation and was duly represented by the Resolution Professional, and that any objection would have been raised at an appropriate time before the National Company Law Tribunal. A Division Bench of Justices Anu Sivaraman and...
Section 9 Arbitration Act Not For Interim Recovery Based On Bill Certification: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court on 1 July held that certification or processing of bills does not, by itself, amount to crystallised liability warranting interim monetary directions under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, particularly where disputes relating to deductions, delays and adjustments remain unresolved. A Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetrapal and Amit Mahajan dismissed SLR Construction Pvt. Ltd.'s appeal against the order refusing interim relief for release of Rs....
LiveLawBiz Arbitration Cases Weekly Digest: June 29 - July 5, 2026
Nominal IndexTBEA Energy India Private Limited v. M/s Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited & M/s Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited v. TBEA Energy (India) Private Limited, 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 671 Indiacan Education Private Limited v. Ministry of Rural Development & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 670 South Eastern Railway v. Sara International Pvt. Ltd., 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 667 India International Convention and Exhibition Centre Limited v. Larsen & Toubro Limited, 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 664 Chirag...
Arbitral Proceedings U/S 9 Cannot Be Used To Reopen Redevelopment Developer Appointment: Bombay HC
The Bombay High Court on 3 July held that the validity of a housing society's decision appointing a developer for redevelopment cannot be reopened in proceedings under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and that such objections must be pursued through remedies available under law. Justice Amit Borkar allowed a petition filed by Vaswani Projects Pvt Ltd., granted interim protection for redevelopment of the Utsahi Maratha Mandal Co-operative Housing Society at Bandra,...
Delhi High Court Upholds Tribunal's Practical Interpretation Of Contract In ₹67 Cr BHEL-TBEA Dispute
The Delhi High Court on 1 July held that an arbitral tribunal's practical and commercial interpretation of a contract does not warrant interference under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and partly upheld an arbitral award arising from a Rs. 67 crore transformer supply contract, modifying it only to grant statutory post-award interest. Justice Subramonium Prasad partly allowed the petition filed by TBEA Energy India Private Limited and dismissed the petition filed by...
Delhi High Court Refers DDU-GKY Dispute To Arbitration, Leaves Issue Of Ministry's Liability To Tribunal
On 2 July, the Delhi High Court referred the disputes arising out of the Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Grameen Kaushalya Yojana (DDU-GKY) project between Indiacan Education Pvt. Ltd. and the National Institute of Rural Development (NIRD) and others to arbitration and appointed advocate Varun Chopra as the sole arbitrator. Justice Mini Pushkarna observed that in a petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, courts must ordinarily leave the question of whether a...
Delhi High Court Upholds ₹130 Crore Arbitration Award Against South Eastern Railway
The Delhi High Court has upheld an arbitral award of more than ₹130 crore in favour of Sara International Pvt. Ltd. against South Eastern Railway. It held that the Railways could not seek a fresh appreciation of evidence after repeatedly failing to cross-examine the company's witnesses or produce rebuttal evidence before the arbitral tribunal. Justice Jasmeet Singh observed, "For the reasons best known to it, the petitioner elected not to avail any opportunity granted by the AT and has...