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...

AP High Court Restores Arbitral Awards In Hindustan Shipyard Case; Says Arbitrators Can Modulate 'Exorbitant' Liquidated Damages

The High Court of Andhra Pradesh recently set aside a Trial Court's order that had earlier quashed thirteen arbitral awards against Hindustan Shipyard Limited (HSL) and its subcontractors. On 31st December 2025, the Division Bench comprising of Justices R. Raghunandan Rao and T.C.D. Sekhar, upholding the arbitral awards, stated that an arbitrator has the jurisdiction to modulate liquidated damages if they are found to be exorbitant or if the delay is attributable to both parties, and noted that...

Entry-Tax Interest & Penalty From Employer's Delay Cannot Be Shifted To Contractor In Arbitration: HP High Court

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has recently clarified that statutory interest and penalty arising from delayed payment of entry tax cannot be shifted onto a contractor when the delay was caused by the employer's own failure to act in time, and where the arbitral tribunal had consciously restricted the contractor's scope of liability. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel in an order dated December 29, 2025, dismissed a challenged filed by Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd (HPSEBL) under...

Bombay HC Restores IMAX's Enforcement Of Foreign Awards Against E-City, Holds Res Judicata Bars Re-Agitation Of Limitation At Later Stage

The Bombay High Court has recently restored enforcement proceedings initiated by IMAX Corporation for execution of foreign arbitral awards against E-City Entertainment (I) Pvt Ltd for breach of contractual obligations, holding that the doctrine of res judicata applies even between different stages of the same enforcement petition. The court said it cannot revisit an objection of limitation merely because subsequent judgments may have taken a different legal view. A Division Bench ...

Mere Interest In Project Does Not Justify Impleadment Of Non-Signatory In Arbitration Without Contractual Participation: HP High Court

The Himachal Pradesh High Court dismissed a writ petition holding that mere financial or consequential interest was insufficient to implead a non-signatory in the arbitration proceedings unless the stringent tests as laid down by the Supreme Court which include participation in the negotiation, performance or termination of contract were satisfied. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel observed: “Merely because the petitioner had a substantial interest in the subject matter of the contract, the same...

Buyer Cannot Reject Goods After Putting Them To Use: Bombay High Court Upholds Arbitral Award Against Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing

The Bombay High Court dismissed a petition under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ("Arbitration Act"), holding that once goods are put to use by the buyer, such conduct amounts to deemed acceptance under section 42 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 ("SOGA"), the buyer cannot later reject the goods on the ground of alleged defects. A claim for damages can be filed for breach of warranty but goods cannot be rejected, the court ruled. Justice Sandeep V. Marne refused ...

Arbitration Annual Digest 2025- Part 2

Gauhati High Court Mere Existence Of Arbitration Clause In Agreement Does Not Oust Jurisdiction Of Civil Court To Entertain Suit: Gauhati High Court Case Title: M/S J.M.B. Construction And 2 Ors. Versus Dr. Somesh Dhar And 3 Ors. Case No:Arb.A./8/2024 The Gauhati High Court bench of Justice Malasri Nandi has held that merely because there is an arbitration clause providing for referring the dispute and the claim to the arbitration, the civil court's jurisdiction is not barred...

Dispute Arising From Sale Deeds Executed Between Partners As Part Of Business Arrangement Is Arbitrable: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court dismissed an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ("Arbitration Act") declining to interfere with an arbitral award dissolving a long-standing partnership and holding that the sale deeds executed between the partners were merely business arrangements, not intended to transfer or create title; consequently, the dispute did not fall outside the ambit of arbitrability, as it involved no rights in rem. A bench comprising Chief Justice...

Order Deciding Director's Authority Is Not An Arbitral Or Interim Award, Not Open To Section 34 Challenge: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court has held that an order passed by an arbitral tribunal deciding a preliminary or a factual issue such as whether the directors were authorised to execute agreements does not amount to an arbitral award or an interim award and therefore cannot be challenged under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ("Arbitration Act"). A Division Bench comprising Justice Anu Sivaraman and Justice Vijaykumar A. Patil allowed a commercial appeal and set aside...