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...

Jurisdictional Objection Rejected By Arbitrator Cannot Be Challenged Under Article 227: Telengana High Court

The Telangana High Court has recently held that its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution cannot be invoked to challenge an arbitral tribunal's rejection of a jurisdictional objection when the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 provides a specific post-award remedy. Dismissing a writ petition filed by Sagar Asia Private Limited, a Division Bench of Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice Gadi Praveen Kumar held that the petitioner must await the arbitral award and...

Arbitrators Cannot Grant Pre-Award Or Pendente Lite Interest As Compensation If Contract Bars It: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Friday held that an arbitral tribunal cannot award pre-award or pendente lite interest when the contract expressly bars payment of interest, even if such amounts are granted in the guise of compensation. A Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi ruled that “The provisions of the Act of 1996, including provisions contained in Section 31(7)(a) give paramount importance to the contract entered into between the parties and categorically restrict the power...

Delhi High Court Sets Aside ₹5.19 crore Award Against Railways Board After Serving Officer Appointed As Arbitrator

The Delhi High Court has set aside a ₹5.19 crore arbitral award against the Railways Board after the Railways challenged the legality of the sole arbitrator it had appointed. The Court held that appointing a serving railway officer as arbitrator, without an express written waiver by both parties, rendered the award void from the beginning.Allowing a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Justice Avneesh Jhingan held, “The appointment of a serving employee as an...

Delhi High Court Confirms Arbitral Award Favoring Rama Constructions In Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium Dispute

The Delhi High Court on 25 February, upheld an arbitral award granting Rs. 80.05 lakh along with 10% interest to Rama Constructions Company in a dispute arising from civil and electrical works executed at the Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium Complex, New Delhi. Dismissing the Union of India's challenge, Justice Jasmeet Singh reiterated the limited scope of judicial interference, noting that the Arbitrator's findings were evidence-based and did not warrant interference under Section 34 of the...

Delhi High Court Appoints Arbitrator In ₹91 Lakh Benetton–Gini and Jony Payment Dispute

The Delhi High Court has appointed a sole arbitrator to adjudicate a Rs. 91,21,454 dispute between global fashion brand Benetton India Pvt Ltd and children's apparel company Gini and Jony Ltd arising out of unpaid dues under a 2014 Distribution Agreement. The Court held that whether subsequent settlement agreements superseded the original contract and extinguished the arbitration clause must be decided by the arbitral tribunal and not at the stage of appointment. Justice Jasmeet Singh ruled...