Bombay High Court Quashes ₹1.26 Crore Arbitral Award Over Unilateral Appointment Of Arbitrator

The Bombay High Court recently set aside a ₹1.26 crore arbitral award made in favor of Madhuban Motors Pvt. Ltd. on the grounds that the lender unilaterally appointed the sole arbitrator, violating Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Ruling that participation in arbitral proceedings cannot remedy an ineligible appointment, the Bench comprising of Justice Sandeep V. Marne held that the award was "patently illegal" and "against public policy". The disputed stemmed from a...

Availability Of Civil Remedy Not Grounds To Quash Criminal Proceedings: J&K High Court Holds In Enso Tower Dispute

The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh recently held that the mere existence of a civil or commercial dispute does not bar criminal prosecution, if the allegations in a complaint disclose the commission of a criminal offense. Noting that same facts might result in both civil and criminal remedies, the bench comprising of Justice Sanjay Dhar, on 26th December, 2025, rejected to quash a 2020 theft FIR arising from a landlord-tenant dispute at Enso Tower. Zaffar Abbas Din, a landlord,...

Non-Signatory Developer Can Be Impleaded In Arbitration If Conduct Shows Intent To Be Bound: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court has refused to interfere with an arbitral tribunal's decision impleading a non signatory company in arbitration proceedings holding that where conduct, agreements and commercial involvement of a party demonstrates clear intent to be bound by the arbitration agreement, the Group of Companies would apply. A Division Bench of Justice Jayant Banerji and Justice Umesh M Adiga dismissed a writ petition filed by Mantri Developers Pvt. Ltd., challenging a majority order...

Bombay High Court Sets Aside Arbitral Award Against Investors, Says Participation In Regulatory Proceedings Is Not “Forum Shopping”

The Bombay High Court recently set aside an arbitral decision that had rejected investors' claims against Central Depository Services (India) Limited (CDSL), on the grounds of alleged forum shopping, by declaring that involvement in regulatory proceedings does not bar independent arbitration remedies. Allowing a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Justice Sandeep V. Marne on 23rd December, 2025 concluded that the arbitral panel had "egregiously erred" by...

Sole Arbitrator Returning Finding Based On Presumption, Modifying Agreement Vitiates Award: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has held that finding returned by a Sole Arbitrator based on presumption and which has the effect of modifying the agreement, vitiates the arbitral award.The bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Jaspreet Singh held “The Sole Arbitrator by returning a finding which is not based on any evidence and material on record and merely is based on presumption coupled with the fact that it has the effect of modifying the terms of the agreement and also amounts to...

Second Arbitral Reference Maintainable When Award Is Set Aside Without Adjudication On Merits: J&K&L High Court

The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has held that a second reference to arbitration is maintainable where an arbitral award has been set aside under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ("Arbitration Act") without any adjudication on merits of the claims, leaving the underlying disputes unresolved. Justice Sanjay Dhar said while allowing the application seeking appointment of a fresh arbitrator after the earlier award had been set aside by the Designated...

Bar U/S 42 Of Arbitration Act Not Attracted Where Seat Is Chosen Before First Application Is Filed: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court has held that where parties have already chosen a seat of arbitration before the first application is filed, the courts exercising jurisdiction over the seat alone will have jurisdiction over all subsequent applications, including those under sections 34 and 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ("Arbitration Act") notwithstanding that earlier application may have been filed before another High Court. Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya held while...

Arbitral Tribunal Not Declared As “Court”, False Evidence Before Arbitrator Does Not Attract S.195 CrPC: J&K&L High Court

Clarifying the scope of criminal law in arbitral proceedings, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has held that the bar contained in Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not apply to allegations of false evidence given before an Arbitral Tribunal, as an arbitrator is not a “court” within the meaning of that provision.“… the term “Court” has been defined in sub-section (3) of Section 195 of Cr. P. C to mean a civil, revenue or criminal court and it includes a Tribunal...

Escrow Agreement Executed In Furtherance Of Share Transfer Agreement With Arbitration Clause Renders Disputes Arbitrable: Calcutta HC

The Calcutta High Court has held that where an escrow agreement is intrinsically linked to or executed in furtherance of a share transfer agreement containing an arbitration clause, disputes arising out of such escrow arrangement are also arbitrable, even if the escrow agreement does not independently contain any arbitration clause. A Division Bench comprising Justice Debangsu Basak and Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi observed while allowing an appeal filed by Asian Tea and Exports Limited...

Forcible Eviction Disputes Not Arbitrable Despite Existence Of Arbitration Clause In Lease Agreement: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court has held that disputes relating to eviction of a tenant are not arbitrable even where the lease agreement contains an arbitration clause and that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court cannot be ousted by such non-arbitrable reliefs. Justice P. Krishna Kumar observed while allowing an Original Petition filed by a retired Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd (“BSNL”) employee challenging an order of the Munsiff Court, Ernakulam, which had referred the dispute to arbitration under...

Buyer Cannot Seek Separate Arbitral Reference For Counter-Claims Once Arbitration Under MSMED Act Has Commenced: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court has held that once arbitral proceedings are commenced before the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council (“Council”) under Section 18(3) of the MSMED Act, 2006, a buyer cannot seek appointment of a separate arbitrator under section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ("Arbitration Act") and therefore all claims including claims for damages by the buyer must be raised before the Council itself which then functions as the arbitral forum. ...

Arbitrator Cannot Invalidate Admitted Retirement Deed Without Recording Clear Finding Of Fabrication Or Manipulation: Delhi High Court

The Delhi high Court has dismissed an appeal under section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act ("Arbitration Act") and upheld an order passed by a Single Judge setting aside an arbitral award which had declared retirement deed of a partner as null and void. A Division bench comprising Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Madhu Jain held that once signatures on the retirement deed were admitted, the arbitral tribunal was not justified in invalidating the deed without returning a...