Delhi High Court Refuses Interim Relief to JLT Energy Against Hindustan Cleanenergy In Solar Deal Dispute

The Delhi High Court has refused to restrain Hindustan Cleanenergy Limited and its group companies from creating third-party rights in two solar power projects in Tamil Nadu and Bihar, holding that the share purchase agreements signed with a French investor had already come to an end on their own terms. Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, in an order dated January 6, 2026, said courts cannot use interim powers to keep a contract alive when the agreement itself provides for its termination When...

Individual Members' Suit Does Not Abandon Society's Arbitration Clause With Developer: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court has held that a civil suit filed by individual members of a housing society against a developer does not amount to abandonment of the arbitration clause in a redevelopment agreement. The Court said such a decision can be taken only by the society acting as a collective body. A Single-Judge Bench of Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan said that once a co-operative housing society is formed, individual members give up their separate will to the collective will of the society....

Madras High Court Upholds Arbitral Award Granting Relief To 93 Chennai Port Spillage Workers

The Madras High Court on Wednesday rejected a petition filed by the Chennai Port Authority, refusing to set aside an arbitral award that directed the port to reinstate spillage-handling workers and grant back wages, gratuity and other service benefits to 93 workers. A single bench of Justice N Anand Venkatesh held that the award did not suffer from any jurisdictional error or patent illegality and did not conflict with public policy. The court observed that the Port Trust, as a State...

Delhi High Court Upholds Arbitral Award In Patel Gammon's Favour in Rampur Hydropower Project Dispute

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a petition filed by SJVN Limited challenging an arbitral award that granted payment to Patel Gammon Joint Venture for transporting excavated material during a hydroelectric project in Himachal Pradesh. A single-judge bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh upheld the substance of the arbitral award but held that the court lacked territorial jurisdiction to entertain the challenge under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The court said the...

Arbitral Proceedings Commence On Respondent Receiving Notice Invoking Arbitration Clause, Not On Arbitrator's Appointment : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court reaffirmed that the arbitral proceedings are set to commence on the date of receipt of notice invoking the arbitration clause by the respondent. “...the date on which the respondent receives a notice or request invoking arbitration is the moment at which the arbitral proceedings commence under Section 21 of the Act. It further clarified that a valid invocation requires the notice to articulate the dispute sought to be referred but once such notice is received, commencement is...

Software Ownership Disputes Involving IPR Not Arbitrable: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court has recently held that an arbitral tribunal was right in refusing to decide who owns a software product, saying such questions involve intellectual property rights that affect the public at large (rights in rem) and cannot be settled through private arbitration.A Single-Judge Bench of Justice Sandeep V Marne said that deciding ownership of the “Test Magic” software would inevitably involve ruling on trademark and copyright rights, which are not meant for arbitration. The...

Plea Of Delay U/S 29A A&C Act Cannot Be Used Selectively By NHAI When Extensions Granted In Similar Land Acquisition Cases: HP High Court

The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that the National Highway Authority of India could not be permitted to raise the plea of delay and laches to defeat continuation of arbitral proceedings when extensions had already been granted and proceedings concluded in the cases of other similarly placed landowners. The court remarked that, having participated in the proceedings for almost nine years, NHAI could not invoke delay, particularly when the object of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996...

Mere Participation In Arbitration Won't Bar Challenge To Arbitrator's Eligibility, Waiver Must Be "Express & In Writing" : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has ruled that a party's involvement in arbitral proceedings does not, in itself, constitute a waiver of its right to object to an arbitrator's eligibility. The Court clarified that the right to object can only be waived by an express written agreement, rejecting any notion of a "deemed waiver" arising from conduct alone under Section 12(5) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996.“The words “an express agreement in writing” in the proviso to Section 12(5) means that the...

Bombay High Court Sets Aside Arbitral Award Passed With “Undue Haste” After Four-Year Delay

The Bombay High Court has set aside an arbitral award, holding that it was passed in undue haste after nearly four years of inaction and without giving the parties any opportunity of hearing.A Single Bench of Justice Sandeep V Marne found that the arbitrator acted with undue haste and in clear breach of natural justice. Rejecting the explanation offered for the long delay, the Court said, “The explanation put forth by the Arbitrator for the delay is factually incorrect. The Arbitrator...

Arbitration Act: Important Judgments By Supreme Court In 2025

In this article, LiveLaw brings to you a summary of important judgments rendered by the Supreme Court in 2025 in connection with the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The same are as follows:1. High Court's Interference Under Article 226/227 Permissible Only If Arbitral Tribunal's Order Is Patently Perverse : Supreme CourtCase: Serosoft Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. Dexter Capital Advisors Pvt. Ltd. [Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 14]In this case, a bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Manoj Misra...

Allahabad High Court Has No Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction, Cannot Extend Arbitrator's Mandate U/S 29A A&C Act

The Allahabad High Court has held that it lacks jurisdiction to extend the mandate of an arbitrator under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, on the ground that it does not exercise ordinary original civil jurisdiction and therefore does not fall within the definition of “Court” under Section 2(1)(e)(i) of the Act. Consequently, the High Court ruled that it cannot entertain writ petitions seeking time-bound or expeditious disposal of arbitral proceedings when a specific...

HC Is Proper Forum To Enforce Domestic Award From International Commercial Arbitration Seated In India: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court, clarifying the forum for execution of arbitral awards, has recently ruled that a domestic arbitral award rendered out of an international commercial arbitration with its seat in India, is enforceable by the High Court itself under Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. A Division Bench of Justices Rajan Roy and Rajeev Bharti, on December 16th, 2025, rejected a special appeal, stating that "the High Court is the 'Court' for filing an application under...