Contractual Bar On Damages Does Not Exclude Right To Restoration Of Benefits: Bombay High Court Modifies Arbitral Award

The Bombay High Court has held that a contractual clause barring damages or compensation in a redevelopment agreement is enforceable but does not restrict the statutory right of a developer to seek restoration of benefits under Section 64 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. Justice Sandeep V. Marne partly set aside an arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, holding that while the arbitrator was justified in denying damages in view of Clause 22 of the...

Limitation To Challenge Arbitral Award Begins On Delivery Of Signed Award Copy To Party: Madhya Pradesh HC

The Madhya Pradesh High Court at Indore has held that the limitation period for challenging an arbitral award begins only from the date on which a signed copy of the award is delivered to the party, setting aside a Commercial Court order that had dismissed a challenge as time-barred.A division bench of Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla and Justice Alok Awasthi ruled that Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 must be read together with Section 31(5), which mandates delivery of a...

Delhi High Court Sets Aside Rs 11.93 Crore Damages In Favour Of ONGC For Lack Of Proof Of Loss

The Delhi High Court has struck down an award of Rs 11.93 crore in additional damages granted to ONGC Limited against UEM India Pvt. Ltd., finding that the arbitral tribunal fixed the amount without any proof of actual loss, without even recording that such loss was incapable of proof, and without explaining how the figure was arrived at. A bench of Justice Avneesh Jhingan held that the award violated the requirement of a reasoned decision under Section 31(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation...

Limitation For Plea-Seeking Arbitrator Appointment Begins From Failure Of Opposite Party To Act On Invocation Notice: J&K&L High Court

The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh recently held that an application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which allows a party to approach the court for appointment of an arbitrator when the other side fails or refuses to do so, must be filed within three years from the date of such failure or refusal. The court clarified that the cause of action arises upon such failure or neglect, and once limitation begins to run, it continues without...

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

NOMINAL INDEX JioStar India Pvt Ltd vs Green Bean Sports Marketing, 2026 LLBiz SC 123Gini AND Jony Ltd v. Benetton India Pvt. Ltd., 2026 LLBiz SC 133Bharat Udyog Ltd. (formerly known as M/s Jai Hind Contractors Pvt. Ltd.) v. Ambernath Municipal Council through Commissioner & Anr., 2026 LLBiz SC 129Kalanithi Maran vs SpiceJet Ltd, 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 292M/s National Highways Authority of India v. M/s BEL-ACC (JV), 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 300ERA Infra Engineering Limited v. National Highways...

Encashing ₹18.64 Lakh Settlement Without Prior Objection Equals Acceptance: Bombay High Court In Reliance ARC's Plea

The Bombay High Court has held that Reliance Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd, having encashed Rs 18.64 lakh offered by borrowers towards full and final settlement without first communicating any objection, must be deemed to have accepted the settlement. It ruled that the company's subsequent claim that the amount was accepted “under protest” was not a valid revocation and that the arbitral awards stood satisfied. Justice Abhay Ahuja held that once the amount was encashed without prior protest,...

Acceptance Of Insurance Claim Under Protest Not 'Accord And Satisfaction': Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court on 18 March held that when a claimant accepts the amount offered by an insurer under protest, such acceptance does not bar the claimant from seeking a higher amount before an arbitral tribunal. Justice Gauri Godse upheld an arbitral award enhancing the compensation payable to the insured after finding an error in the surveyor's assessment. The Court rejected the insurer's contention that the insured's acceptance of the amount amounted to accord and satisfaction. It...

Chhattisgarh High Court Allows Gilcon Project's Claims, Rejects State's Appeal In Arbitration Dispute

The Chhattisgarh High Court on 25 March dismissed the State of Chhattisgarh's appeals and upheld the Commercial Court's order partly setting aside the arbitral award while granting limited relief to Gilcon Project Service Ltd. JV Scapes Associates.A Bench of Justice Rajani Dubey and Justice Radhakishan Agrawal reiterated that courts exercising jurisdiction under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 cannot reassess evidence or substitute the arbitrator's findings...

Re-Colouring Facts As Public Policy Ground Not Enough To Resist Enforcement Of Foreign Arbitral Award: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court of India on Wednesday held that enforcement of foreign arbitral awards cannot be resisted under Section 48 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, on a party's plea re-characterizing factual disputes as issues of public policy, particularly as courts cannot re-examine awards on merits at the enforcement stage. A Division Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Vinod Chandran dismissed Special Leave Petitions filed by Nagaraj V. Mylandla and Sharada Mylandla...

Madras High Court Dismisses Appeal Against Arbitrator Order Refusing Expert Analysis Of iPad Evidence

The Madras High Court has recently dismissed an appeal challenging an arbitrator's refusal to send an iPad marked as evidence for expert analysis, holding that the appeal filed by ADRPlexus Medical Services Pvt Ltd was not maintainable under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, particularly where the request was made after completion of the claimant's evidence. A Division Bench of Justice P. Velmurugan and Justice K. Govindarajan Thilakavadi held that ADRPlexus Medical...

Chhattisgarh High Court Refuses To Condone 110-Day Delay In Arbitration Appeal Against PwC

The Chhattisgarh High Court has dismissed an arbitration appeal filed by the Chhattisgarh State Agriculture Marketing Board against Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd., holding that the Board failed to justify a delay of 110 days in filing the appeal within the time limit prescribed under the Commercial Courts Act. A division bench of Justices Rajani Dubey and Radhakishan Agrawal held that no sufficient cause was shown to justify the delay beyond the prescribed limitation period under the...

Clause Allowing Unilateral Appointment Of Arbitrator Does Not Invalidate Arbitration Agreement: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court has held in a dispute between a borrower and IndusInd Bank that even if an arbitration clause permits unilateral appointment of an arbitrator by one party, such a condition would invalidate only the appointment procedure and not the arbitration agreement itself. In a judgment dated March 23, 2026, Justice Om Narayan Rai upheld the referral of the dispute to arbitration while affirming an order of the City Civil Court, Calcutta, which had stayed a civil suit filed by...