Review Petition Can't Be Entertained Against Order Refusing To Appoint Arbitrator: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court held that review petitions challenging orders passed under section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) are not maintainable, reiterating that the arbitration act is a self contained code and does not permit substantive review unless expressly provided. Justice S. Manu dismissed a review petition filed against an order passed by the court refusing to appoint the arbitrator, holding that the High Court becomes functus-officio after...

S.11 Arbitration Plea Not Maintainable Without Valid S.21 Notice; Email Suggesting Arbitrator Appointment Insufficient: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court dismissed an arbitration request filed under section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) holding that the applicants failed to send a valid notice under section 21 which is a pre-condition for invoking jurisdiction of the court for appointment of an arbitrator. Justice S. Manu held that email relied upon by the applicants merely asking the respondents to suggest an arbitrator did not mention any specific dispute, any arbitration...

Delay Attributable To State: Sikkim High Court Affirms Arbitral Award Of ₹5.88 Crore; Rejects State's Challenge

The High Court of Sikkim dismissed an appeal under section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) filed by the State of Sikkim and its Power Department challenging an arbitral award that granted escalation and interest to contractor for work executed on a 66/11KV sub-station project at Mangan. A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Biswanath Somadder and Justice Bhaskar Raj Pradhan upheld the order passed by the Commercial Court holding that neither patent...

Power To Extend Mandate Of Arbitrator Appointed By HC Rests Exclusively With High Court: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court dismissed a revisional application filed by Cosmic MAPL JV challenging the Commercial Court's refusal to extend the mandate of an arbitrator under Section 29A(4) and 29A(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act). Justice Shampa Sarkar held that in cases where the referral court is the High Court under section 11, it also becomes the competent court to entertain applications for extension or substitution of arbitrators under section 29A. ...

Writ Petition Filed To Bypass Pre-Deposit Requirement Under MSMED Act Is Not Maintainable: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court dismissed a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging an award passed by the West Bengal Micro & Small Enterprises Facilitation Council (MSEFC), holding that the petition was not maintainable and was filed to evade pre-deposit requirement under section 19 of the MSMED Act, 2006. Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya held that the Facilitation Council had jurisdiction to entertain the reference under section 18 and the buyer (Kommoners Club...

Delhi High Court Rejects DDA's Arbitration Appeal, Holds Revaluation Of Evidence Impermissible U/S 37 A&C Act

The Delhi High Court on December 11, 2025 upheld an Arbitral Award that favoured a contractor, M/s Harjinder Brothers, in a dispute over encashment of a bank guarantee and non-payment of "watch and ward" security expenses, dismissing an appeal filed by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA). The Court presided by Hon'ble Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha reaffirmed that the appellate courts are not permitted to re-evaluate evidence under 37, and held that the arbitrator's decision is a "possible and...

Question On Existence Of Arbitration Clause Cannot Be Re-agitated U/S 11 After Being Settled U/S 8 A&C Act: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav has observed that when a party invokes Section 11(6), Arbitration and Conciliation Act (“ACA”) after a judicial authority has declined a referral under Section 8, ACA, it is impermissible for the Court to appoint an arbitrator, owing to issue estoppel and also res judicata.FactsThe Petitioner i.e. JSW MG Motor India Pvt Ltd. (“JSW”), an automobile company filed the present petition against the Respondent i.e. M/s Tristar Auto...

LiveLawBiz: Business Law Daily Round-Up: December 11, 2025

TAXRailway Receipts & STTG Certificates Are Valid Documents For Availing CENVAT Credit Before 27.08.2014: CESTAT Kolkata'Did Not Apply Mind': Gujarat High Court Quashes Tax Authority's Order Refusing To Condone Delay In Filing Return Due To COVID Pandemic Customs Act | 'Prohibition Includes Restriction': CESTAT Chennai Holds S.111(d) Covers Both Complete & Partial Restricted Imports ITC Cannot Be Denied For Non-Filing Of TRAN-1 Due To Transition Issues When GST Regime Came Into Effect:...

Seven-Year Delay Violates Public Policy: Madras High Court Quashes ₹51.48 Lakh Award Against TN Housing Board

The Madras High Court has set aside an arbitral award of ₹51.48 lakhs passed in favour of the contractor, M/s. N.C.C. Ltd., on the ground of an inexplicable and excessive seven-year delay in its decision.On December 8th, 2025, Justice N. Anand Venkatesh ruled that such a delay, which is "explicit and adversely reflects on the findings," renders the award in conflict with the public policy of India and is vitiated by patent illegality, thereby attracting the provisions of Section 34 of the...

Award By Arbitrator Appointed By HC In International Commercial Arbitration Invalid Even If Parties Consent To Appointment: Madras HC

The Madras High Court bench of Justice N Anand Venkatesh has observed that appointment of arbitrator by a high court in case of an international commercial arbitration renders the award a nullity. Sections 4 and 11(6), Arbitration and Conciliation Act (“ACA”) are non -derogable and it is only the Apex Court which can appoint an arbitrator in an international commercial arbitration. Facts The present petitions have been filed under Section 34, ACA by China Datang Technologies and...

Non-Signatory, Non-Existent LLP Cannot Invoke Arbitration Protection Through Group Of Companies Doctrine: Meghalaya High Court

The Meghalaya High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by Suraksha Salvia LLP against the State Government's termination of a Public-Private Partnership (PPP) for a diagnostic centre in Shillong, ruling that a company that was not even in existence on the date of agreement execution cannot seek protection under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The Division Bench comprising of Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice H.S. Thangkhiew, on Tuesday, upheld the Commercial Court's...

Bombay High Court Sets Aside Award Ordering Sharekhan To Refund Rs 4.87 Lakh In Brokerage

The Bombay High Court has set aside an arbitral award that had directed Sharekhan Limited, a broking firm, to refund Rs 4.87 lakh in brokerage to its client Darshini Shah. The court held that the arbitral tribunal had irrationally treated the same 2007 contract between the parties as valid for permitting trades but invalid for charging brokerage and that such a conclusion was fundamentally inconsistent with Indian contract law. A single bench of Justice Sandeep V Marne held on December 9, 2025,...