LiveLawBiz Arbitration Cases Monthly Digest: September 2026
Shivani PS
1 Oct 2026 7:45 PM IST
Supreme Court
Case Title : JIOSTAR INDIA PVT LTD VERSUS GREEN BEAN SPORTS MARKETIN
Case Number : ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 16 OF 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz SC 320
The Supreme Court has appointed former Bombay High Court judge Justice S.C. Gupte as the Sole Arbitrator to resolve a dispute between JioStar India Pvt Ltd and Green Bean Sports Marketing.
The dispute arises from an agreement under which JioStar granted Green Bean IPL media rights for the 2023-2027 seasons exclusively in Bangladesh.
A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana allowed the petition and appointed Justice S.C. Gupte, former Judge of the Bombay High Court, as the Sole Arbitrator. The Court fixed Mumbai as the seat and venue of arbitration.
"In view of the facts and circumstances recorded above, we deem it just and proper to allow the instant petition and appoint Justice S.C. Gupte, former Judge of the Bombay High Court, as the Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties arising out of the Media Rights Sub-License Agreement dated 30.03.2023, read with the Amendment Agreement dated 01.03.2024. The seat and venue of the arbitration, in accordance with the said agreement, shall be Mumbai, India.", the Court said.
Case Title : Kinetic Green Energy and Power Solutions Limited v. Saera Electric Auto Limited
Case Number : Civil Appeal No. 13117 of 2026 arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 31162 of 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz SC 319
The Supreme Court on Thursday referred to arbitration as a dispute between Kinetic Green Energy and Power Solutions Limited and Saera Electric Auto Limited over contractual exclusivity and non-compete obligations.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi appointed former Supreme Court judge Justice R.V. Raveendran as the sole arbitrator.
“Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties, we are of the opinion that the constitution of an Arbitral Tribunal to adjudicate the disputes between the parties would be the appropriate course of action at this stage,” it said.
Appeal Against Rejection Of Interim Relief Cannot Be Remitted To Arbitral Tribunal: Supreme Court
Case Title : Union of India & Others v. Hariom Projects Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number: Civil Appeal of 2026 arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 33087 of 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz SC 316
The Supreme Court has held that a High Court cannot transfer an appeal against rejection of an interim-relief application under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act to an arbitral tribunal and direct the tribunal to treat it as an application for interim measures.
A bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Prasanna B. Varale set aside a Bombay High Court direction to that extent in a dispute between the Union of India and Hariom Projects Pvt. Ltd.
"The appellate jurisdiction under Section 37 is vested exclusively in the “Court” as contemplated under Section 2(1)(e) of the Act. An Arbitral Tribunal exercising powers under Section 17 does not exercise appellate jurisdiction over an order passed by a competent Court under Section 9. Consequently, the effect of the impugned direction would be to require the Arbitral Tribunal to examine the subject matter of a statutory appeal under Section 37 by treating the appellate proceedings as an application under Section 17. The nature and source of the powers exercised by an appellate Court under Section 37 are distinct from the powers conferred upon an Arbitral Tribunal under Section 17 and same cannot be interchanged merely by transmitting or remitting the appellate proceedings to the Tribunal.", the court ruled.
Case Title : MAHANADI COALFIELDS LTD & ORS. VERSUS M/S GSCO (GURMEET SINGH AND COMPANY) INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.
Case Number : SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 2 1 3 7 5 O F 2 0 2 5
Citation : 2026 LLBiz SC 315
The Supreme Court has ruled that a petition challenging an arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act can be filed before a Commercial Court.
Where no Commercial Court has been established, it can be filed before a District Court within the territorial jurisdiction of the concerned High Court.
This is unless the parties have agreed otherwise or a specific arbitral seat has been determined.
A bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva made the observation while allowing Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd's appeal against an Orissa High Court order. The High Court had held that MCL's Section 34 petitions before the District Judge, Sundargarh were not maintainable for want of jurisdiction and were also time barred.
The Supreme Court set aside the June 20, 2025 order and restored the petitions before the Sundargarh court.
“A High Court of a State exercises jurisdiction over the entire State and as such all the Commercial Courts/District Courts (where no commercial Court has been set up) within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court would have jurisdiction to entertain a petition under section 34 of the Act,” the court ruled.
Arbitral Tribunal Erred In Granting Pre-Reference Interest Despite Contractual Bar: Supreme Court
Case Title : North Eastern Electric Power Corporation Limited (NEEPCO) v. Astra Construction Private Limited
Case Number : Civil Appeal of 2026 arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 24803 of 2025 | 2026 INSC 1036
Citation: 2026 LLBiz SC 314
The Supreme Court has set aside a High Court order restoring pre-reference interest to a contractor, holding that the contract barred the grant of such interest.
The arbitral tribunal had awarded ₹3.30 crore on four claims, along with 12% annual pre-reference interest. The Supreme Court held that the tribunal exceeded the bounds of its jurisdiction by awarding the interest despite the contractual bar.
A Bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe allowed North Eastern Electric Power Corporation Limited's (NEEPCO) appeal against Astra Construction Private Limited.
The court set aside the Meghalaya High Court's order restoring pre-reference interest.
Case Title National Seeds Corporation Ltd. v. National Agro Seed Corporation (India)
Case Number Civil Appeal of 2026 (@ SLP (C) No. 5710 of 2025 )
Citation 2026 LLBiz SC 312
The Supreme Court has asked the Law Commission of India to examine the need for a uniform system governing money deposited with courts and tribunals during appeals.
The exercise will cover where such money should be kept, how it should earn interest, and how the deposit and interest should ultimately be adjusted between the parties.
The direction came while the top court held that National Seeds Corporation Ltd. remained liable to pay 12% interest on an arbitral award amount despite having deposited money in court. The money had been deposited as a condition for staying the award and was not freely available to National Agro Seed Corporation (India) for withdrawal.
A Bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe held that a deposit in court does not by itself stop interest from running. For interest liability to cease, the payment must comply with Order XXI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which lays down the modes of paying money under a decree.
The bench ruled, “A deposit of the amount in the court has to be made unconditionally and the same must be available to the decree-holder for withdrawal, in order to make the deposit in consonance with Order XXI Rule 1 of the Code.”
It further held, “If the deposit is not made in terms of Order XXI Rule 1 of the Code, the interest continues to run on the amount after the deposit.”
Supreme Court Upholds Bombay HC Order Referring Kirloskar Family Dispute To Arbitration
Case Title : KIRLOSKAR BROTHERS LIMITED vs ATUL CHANDRAKANT KIRLOSKAR & ORS.
Case Number : SLP (CIVIL) NO. 8020 OF 2021
Citation : 2026 LLBiz SC 305
The Supreme Court has upheld the Bombay High Court's decision to refer to arbitration a dispute between Kirloskar Brothers Limited and members of the Kirloskar family arising from a Deed of Family Settlement dated September 11, 2009 (DFS).
The DFS sought to formalise the separation of businesses and group companies among different branches of the family with Clause 20 containing an arbitration agreement.
A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana observed the High Court committed no error in leaving these issues open for determination under Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
"We are, therefore, of the view that the High Court committed no error in declining to render a final finding on these questions at the Section 8 stage and in leaving them open for determination by the Arbitral Tribunal under Section 16 of the 1996 Act. In such circumstances, we find no ground warranting interference with the impugned judgment. The instant appeals are accordingly disposed of.", the Court said.
Case Title : National Skill Development Corporation v. Surya Wires Private Limited & Ors.
Case Number : Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 10030 of 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz SC 302
The Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled that an arbitration clause in a loan agreement can bind a personal guarantor even where the guarantee contains no separate arbitration clause.
This applies where the guarantee is expressly integrated into the loan agreement as part of the same composite transaction.
Allowing an appeal by the National Skill Development Corporation (NSDC) against Surya Wires Private Limited and others, the Court set aside the Delhi High Court's judgment upholding the deletion of Surya Wires' Managing Director from the arbitral proceedings.
The appeal before the Supreme Court was confined to the Managing Director, who had executed the Personal Guarantees in his individual capacity. The Court held that he was bound to submit to arbitration as guarantor.
A Division Bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe observed:
“The phrase 'as if the provisions thereof were set out herein in extension' operates as a deeming fiction internal to the contract, binding every facility agreement, including the Personal Guarantee, within the same legal and arbitral framework as the Loan Agreement. The Personal Guarantees do not, therefore, stand apart from the Loan Agreements, and are woven into their very fabric.”
The Court further observed, “A guarantee so defined and so integrated cannot be severed, for purposes of dispute resolution alone, from the very Clause 11.2 that governs disputes touching the rights and obligations arising under that Agreement, while remaining tethered to it for every other purpose, including the extent of liability.”
Case Title : UTTAR PRADESH RAJYA VIDYUT UTPADAN NIGAM LIMITED (UPRVUNL) VS. M/S ADANI ENTERPRISES LIMITED
Case Number :L DIARY NO. - 39836/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz SC 291
The Supreme Court has refused to interfere with a ruling permitting Adani Enterprises Ltd to pursue execution proceedings against Uttar Pradesh Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd and other constituent entities of UCM Coal Company Ltd.
It clarified, however, that Adani's claim must first be satisfied through UCM Coal Company's assets. Execution against the other entities can proceed only if any amount remains unpaid.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana upheld the Allahabad High Court's April 9, 2026, judgment.
The court found that the High Court's findings were supported by the pleadings and documents on record. It nevertheless clarified the order in which the award could be enforced.
The court observed, "In light of the categorical findings returned by the High Court in Paragraph 62 of the Impugned Judgment, which are duly supported by the averments made in the pleadings and the documents on record, we are satisfied that the impugned judgment calls for no interference. However, we deem it appropriate to make it clear that the claim of the decree-holder will firstly be satisfied through the assets of the judgment debtor, namely UCM Coal Company Limited, and it is only if the claim remains unsatisfied that the execution proceedings against the petitioner(s) shall proceed."
Case Title : LARSEN AND TOUBRO LIMITED VS. INDIA INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION AND EXHIBITION CENTRE LIMITED
Case Number: DIARY NO. - 48980/2026
The Supreme Court on Tuesday, 1 September, said it would examine whether an arbitral tribunal can grant interim monetary relief on disputed claims under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
A Bench of Justices P.S. Narasimha and Alok Aradhe issued notice on Larsen & Toubro Ltd.'s challenge to a Delhi High Court judgment which set aside an interim direction requiring India International Convention and Expo Centre Ltd. (IICECL) to release approximately Rs. 227 crore to L&T.
The judges indicated the case raises a “larger issue” on the scope of an arbitral tribunal's interim powers under Section 17, particularly whether it can issue positive monetary directions rather than merely preserve the subject matter of the dispute. They observed:
“This issue of the arbitral tribunal, not merely granting injunctions, as it originally was contemplated, to go further and give positive directions, will have to be considered.”
High Courts
Bombay High Court
Bombay High Court Restrains Parle Agro's Franchisee From Selling SURE Water Competing With BAILLEY
Case Title : Parle Agro Private Limited v. Udayak Agro Products Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
Case Number : Commercial Arbitration Petition (L) No. 25994 of 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 531
The Bombay High Court has granted interim protection to Parle Agro Private Limited in its arbitration dispute with its franchisee Udayak Agro Products Pvt. Ltd. and Udayak's connected entity, K.L. Beverages LLP, over the manufacture and sale of competing packaged drinking water.
Justice Amit Borkar found a prima facie case that the manufacture of SURE water by K.L. Beverages was covered by the indirect competition restrictions in Parle Agro's franchise agreement with Udayak.
The court found that Parle Agro had made out a prima facie case that the competing packaged drinking water activity carried on through K.L. Beverages was covered by the indirect competition restrictions in Udayak Agro's 2014 franchise agreement.
The court observed, “The Court has to see all the material together. If every document is looked at separately, the Respondents may have some explanation for each circumstance. But the combined effect of the material cannot be ignored.”
Case Title : Sunfield Global Pte Limited v. Liberty Investments Private Limited
Case Number : Commercial Arbitration Appeal (L) No. 1634 of 2026 in Commercial Arbitration Petition (L) No. 34540 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 530
On Tuesday, 22 September, the Bombay High Court held that interim relief granted by a foreign arbitral tribunal may be rendered ineffective in India where there is no direct mechanism to enforce such an order.
A Division Bench of Justices A.S. Gadkari and Kamal Khata allowed an appeal by Singapore-based Sunfield Global Pte Limited against Liberty Investments Private Limited, set aside a Single Judge's order refusing interim protection and directed Liberty to secure Sunfield's admitted USD 66,92,500 claim. The judges observed:
“There is a high likelihood of such interim measures or protection being rendered otiose by the time this process is completed, rendering it ineffective altogether. This would involve three distinct rounds of litigation, which would be a cumbersome and wholly inefficacious as compared to approaching this Court in a Section 9 Petition.”
Forgery Allegation Alone No Ground To Reject Plea For Arbitrator Appointment: Bombay High Court
Case Title Kiran Narendra Patkar v. Milan Narendra Patkar and Another
Case Number Commercial Arbitration Application (L) No.23278 of 2026 with Commercial Arbitration Petition (L) No.23009 of 2026
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM)520
The Bombay High Court has held that an allegation that an arbitration agreement was forged does not automatically require rejection of an application for appointment of an arbitrator where independent documents provide a prima facie basis for the agreement's existence.
Justice Amit Borkar appointed Advocate Ranjeev Carvalho as sole arbitrator to decide the Patkar House redevelopment dispute between developer Kiran Narendra Patkar and Milan Narendra Patkar. All objections concerning the agreement's execution, genuineness, and enforceability were left open for the arbitrator.
The Court found that a registered will and a later gift deed referred to the redevelopment transaction. These documents provided sufficient prima facie material to permit arbitration, although the respondents remained free to prove their forgery allegations before the tribunal.
The court observed: “The submission based upon Rajia Begum succeeds only to a limited extent. I accept that where the arbitration agreement is alleged to be forged, the Court has to consider that objection as a jurisdictional issue. However, I do not accept that merely raising such an allegation requires rejection of the Section 11 Application. The real test is whether the material makes the non-existence of the arbitration agreement so clear that arbitration cannot be allowed to start. In the present case, that position is not reached.”
Case Title SAP India Private Limited Versus Cox and Kings Limited
Case Number COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 865 OF 2026
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 522
The Bombay High Court on 10 September extended the mandate of an arbitral tribunal headed by former Supreme Court judge Justice Madan Lokur by one year and allowed SAP India Private Limited's pending claim against Cox & Kings to proceed.
A Bench of Justice Arif S. Doctor found that the delay in completing the arbitration was not attributable to any deliberate, wilful or negligent default by SAP or the tribunal. He observed:
“The delay in completion of the arbitral proceedings before the Justice Lokur Tribunal cannot, in the facts of the present case, be attributed to any deliberate, wilful or negligent default on the part of the Petitioner, much less of the Tribunal. In these circumstances, to permit the mandate to lapse without affording the Petitioner an opportunity to have its pending claim adjudicated would, in my view, defeat rather than advance the underlying object of the arbitral process.”
120-Day Written Statement Period Must Be Computed Under General Clauses Act: Bombay High Court
Case Title Jyoti Structures Limited vs Africa Power Company CC
Case Number WRIT PETITION NO. 10803 OF 2026
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 523
The Bombay High Court on 7 September held that whether the 120-day period for filing a written statement in a commercial suit has expired must be determined by correctly computing the period under Section 9 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, and not by applying a strict or liberal construction of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
Justice N. J. Jamadar allowed Jyoti Structures Ltd.'s writ petition against Africa Power Company CC and set aside the Commercial Court's 18 June 2026 order rejecting its application to condone the alleged one-day delay in filing the written statement. The Bench observed:
“However, the question as to whether the period of 120 days has expired or not, is not a matter of strict or liberal construction of the provisions of the Act, 2015. It is simply a matter of computation of the period, applying the well established principle incorporated in Section 9 of the Act, 1897, in the matter of computation of time. The strict construction of the provisions contained in the Act, 2015, does not imply that, the provisions of the Act, 2015, shall not be correctly construed. In other words, the strict construction cannot be equated with an erroneous interpretation of the provisions.”
Bombay High Court Condones 530-Day Delay In Foreign Award Enforcement Amid Limitation Uncertainty
Case Title China Fortune Corporation Limited v. Gandhar Oil Refinery India Limited
Case Number nterim Application (L) No. 19323 of 2026 in Commercial Arbitration Petition No. 499 of 2021
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 514
The Bombay High Court has condoned a 530-day delay in seeking enforcement of a foreign arbitral award, holding that the uncertainty over the limitation period applicable to enforcement of foreign awards constituted sufficient cause for the delay.
Justice Arif S. Doctor observed that the delay arose from “the lack of clarity in the law at the time regarding the applicable period of limitation for the enforcement of a foreign award” and not from ignorance or misunderstanding of the law.
The court held that, in these circumstances, depriving China Fortune Corporation Limited of its right to seek enforcement would be “wholly unconscionable”.
Case Title : Zee Learn Limited v. Pragati Shiksha Shrot Trust
Case Number : COMM ARBITRATION PETITION (L) NO.21131 OF 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 472
On 1 September, the Bombay High Court restrained a Dehradun-based school from using the “MOUNT LITERA ZEE SCHOOL” and “MLZS” marks and the MLZS Program pending arbitration.
Justice Amit Borkar partly allowed a petition filed by Zee Learn Limited seeking interim relief against Pragati Shiksha Shrot Trust, Dehradun, pending arbitral proceedings. He held that a former licensee cannot continue using a licensor's mark after termination of the licence agreements. He observed:
“Pending commencement and adjudication of the arbitral proceedings between the Petitioner and the Respondent, the Respondent, its servants, agents, assigns, and all persons claiming through or under the Respondent are restrained from conducting or representing any business, school or educational programme under the name and style of “MOUNT LITERA ZEE SCHOOL” or “MLZS”, or under any mark or name which is deceptively or phonetically similar thereto.”
Communication On Company Letterhead Not Enough To Establish Consent To Arbitrate: Bombay High Court
Case Title : New Consolidated Construction Company Limited v. Limitless Contracting Private Limited & Ors.
Case Number : Commercial Arbitration Application (L) No. 38984 of 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 538
Today, the Bombay High Court held that use of a company's letterhead in project-related communications does not by itself make the company a party to another company's contract or establish its consent to the arbitration clause.
Justice Amit Borkar made the observation while referring the dispute between New Consolidated Construction Company Limited (NCCCL) and Limitless Contracting Private Limited concerning construction works at the “One Park Avenue” project in Kolshet, Thane, to arbitration, and refused to refer Man Realty and Puravankara to arbitration. The Bench observed:
“The letterhead may show from which company the communication came. But it does not show that the company became a party to another company's contract or accepted the arbitration clause contained in that contract.”
Interim Return Of Property Can Support Arbitration Without Granting Final Relief: Bombay High Court
Case Title : Limited Liability Company “LTB" vs Shri Vaibhavi Logistics & Ors
Case Number : COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION PETITION (L) NO.24421 OF 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 502
The Bombay High Court on 27 August held that directing the return of property as an interim measure does not amount to granting final relief where the direction is intended to protect and support arbitral proceedings.
Justice Amit Borkar partly allowed a petition filed by Limited Liability Company “LTB” seeking interim protection in respect of its tank containers and directed their release, while leaving the parties' substantive claims open for appropriate proceedings. He held:
“I do not accept the submission that directing return of the tanks would amount to granting final relief. Section 9 relief is intended to support the arbitration and is not meant to finally decide the entire dispute. But an interim direction for return or protection of property does not, for that reason, become a final order.”
IBC Resolution Ends Pre-Resolution Claims, Arbitration Cannot Continue: Bombay High Court
Case Title : JSW Steel Ltd vs Delta Iron & Steel Co. Pvt. Ltd. & Ors
Case Number : INTERIM APPLICATION NO.542 OF 2019 IN COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION PETITION NO.1558 OF 2019
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 504
The Bombay High Court has recently held that once a corporate debtor is resolved under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, there is no residual cause of action from a pre-resolution claim that can be pursued through arbitration or Section 9 proceedings.
Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan observed that the insolvency resolution process brings such claims to an end, whether the creditor recovers some, none or all of the amount claimed.
The court held, “That a corporate debtor who is resolved under the IBC starts with a clean slate, is now well declared in numerous judgements. Causes of action against the corporate debtor prior to resolution would come to an end with the assessment and determination of claims under the resolution process. A creditor may recover some or none or all of the debt claimed from and owed to it by the corporate debtor. Regardless of how much is recovered, there would be no residual cause of action to agitate. Arbitration agreements governing such discharged causes of action would not be available to give any continued life to the Section 9 jurisdiction.”
Case Title : Vikas Babulal Khandelwal v. Shree Krishna Sai Development Corporation & Ors.
Case Number : Commercial Arbitration Petition (L) No. 25100 of 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 496
The Bombay High Court has held that an authority letter allowing a partner to “deal” with partnership property cannot by itself be treated as a blanket power to sell or transfer the firm's immovable properties.
The court observed that the authority letters gave the partner “authority of some substance”, but did not confer an unrestricted power to sell or transfer the firm's immovable properties.
Justice Amit Borkar, while deciding a plea under the Arbitration Act seeking interim relief observed:
“Depending upon the transaction, this expression may cover documents required for completing the transaction. But it cannot be treated as giving a blanket power to sell or transfer all properties of the Firm. The expression has to be understood with reference to the property identified in the Authority Letter, the transaction contemplated and the purpose for which the authority was given. Its scope cannot be enlarged beyond what the document, when read as a whole, reasonably permits.”
Acquiring Property Interest Alone Does Not Bind Transferee To Arbitration Clause: Bombay High Court
Case Title : Shree Satguru Developers & Ors. v. Chandrashekhar Champalal Hingarh & Ors.
Case Number : Arbitration Application (L) No. 27816 of 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 539
The Bombay High Court on 7 September held that acquiring an interest in property covered by a Development Agreement, by itself, does not make a transferee a party to the arbitration agreement contained in the Development Agreement.
Justice Amit Borakar added that a transferee can become bound by the arbitration clause only where material shows assignment, incorporation, acceptance or unequivocal adoption of the underlying agreement, and appointed a sole arbitrator for disputes between the developers and the original owners/confirming parties, but declined to appoint an arbitrator against the subsequent transferee. The Bench observed:
“….There is no document shown by the Applicants by which Respondent No.1 agreed to take upon the obligations of the Developer or the Owners under that agreement. The Applicants rely upon the fact that Respondent No.1 acquired rights in the Petition Property. This fact is not sufficient. Acquisition of an interest in the property and acquisition of rights under the Development Agreement are separate matters.”
Case Title : The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. M/s. Atul Raj Builders Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : Arbitration Petition No. 264 of 1998
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 492
The Bombay High Court has reiterated that the limitation for challenging an arbitral award under the Arbitration Act, 1940, need not remain paused until formal court notice is issued if the party is otherwise aware of the award.
Relying on apex court rulings, the court ruled,
“The precise form of what constitutes as a 'notice' of filing the Award is unspecified. However, interpreted reasonably, what must be required is that the parties come to know about the existence of the Award so that any objections to it may be filed. What appears from the usage of the word 'notice' is that the parties merely reach a state of awareness about the Award and plan their next steps accordingly, and not the imposition of another procedural step. If the literal interpretation is taken and limitation is paused until a formal notice is issued by the Court, it would allow a party otherwise aware of the Award to sit over the Award and delay filing objections. This would undercut the speedy intent governing arbitration," the court ruled.
Delhi High Court
Arbitral Tribunal Cannot Permit PBG Appropriation Contrary To Contractual Terms: Delhi High Court
Case Title : ISGEC Heavy Engineering Limited v. Prakash Industries Limited
Case Number : O.M.P. (COMM) 503/2023
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 1037
The Delhi High Court on 31 August held that an arbitral tribunal cannot permit appropriation of Performance Bank Guarantee (PBG) proceeds contrary to the contractual terms governing the parties.
Justice Avneesh Jhingan was hearing a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 filed by ISGEC Heavy Engineering Limited challenging an arbitral award arising from its dispute with Prakash Industries Limited. The Bench observed:
“The tribunal permitting appropriation of the PBG proceeds towards the unproved losses and damages is without any basis and is consequently perverse. To that extent the award suffers from patent illegality.”
Case Title : M/s Airport Handling Services v. Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur
Case Number : FAO (COMM) 231/2026 & CM APPL. 53142/2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 1027
The Delhi High Court has ruled that a restriction in the service rules governing the President of a State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission cannot, by itself, make the person ineligible to act as an arbitrator under Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act).
A division bench of Justice Anil Khetarpal and Justice Shail Jain observed relying on ruln in Delhi Integrated Multi Modal Transit Systems Ltd. ruled, “A breach of a condition governing the office held by an arbitrator may entail consequences under the statutory or regulatory framework governing that office. Such consequence, however, cannot automatically be equated with termination of the arbitral mandate under Section 12(5), particularly when the alleged disability does not arise from any of the circumstances specified in the Seventh Schedule.”
Case Title : Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. v. Sh. Pankaj (Since Deceased) Thr LRs
Case Number : FAO (COMM) 23/2025 & CM APPL. 4055/2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 1042
The Delhi High Court has held that the statutory ineligibility introduced for arbitrators by the 2015 amendment to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, cannot be retrospectively applied to invalidate an appointment made before the amendment came into force.
A Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetrapal and Bharat Parashar upheld the appointment of a serving Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC) employee as sole arbitrator.
The arbitration was invoked on June 3, 2014 and the arbitrator was appointed on March 24, 2015, while the amendment introducing Section 12(5) and the Seventh Schedule came into force only on October 23, 2015.
The bench observed, “Where the arbitral proceedings had commenced before 23.10.2015, the amended provisions cannot be applied merely on the ground that the circumstances attracting those provisions continued thereafter. Such proceedings remain governed by the pre-amendment regime unless the parties have otherwise agreed to the application of the amended Act within the meaning of Section 26.”
Appointing Arbitrator Unilaterally Does Not Amount To Waiving Ineligibility: Delhi High Court
Case Title : M/s Ahluwalia Contracts (India) Limited (ACIL) v. Airports Authority of India (AAI)
Case Number : FAO(OS) (COMM) 246/2026, CM APPL. 61809/2026 & CM APPL. 61810/2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 1017
The Delhi High Court has held that a party's unilateral appointment of an arbitrator cannot by itself amount to an express waiver of the arbitrator's statutory ineligibility under Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
A Division Bench of Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Vimal Kumar Yadav upheld the setting aside of an arbitral award partly in favour of Ahluwalia Contracts (India) Limited (ACIL), despite the Airports Authority of India (AAI) having appointed the arbitrator and participated in the arbitration for nearly four years.
The court observed, “The mere fact that the appointment was made by AAI does not amount to an express agreement in writing by both parties to waive the applicability of Section 12(5) of the A&C Act. The act of appointment and the statutory waiver contemplated by the proviso operate in distinct fields and cannot be equated with each other.”
Case Title : Hindustan Shipyard Limited Versus M/S Anadolu Deniz Insaat Kizaklari Sanayi Ve Ticaret A.S. & Anr.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 1008/2026, I.A. 25198/2026, I.A. 25199/2026 & I.A. 25200/2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 996
The Delhi High Court on 18 September directed that arbitral proceedings initiated by Turkish company Anadolu Deniz against Hindustan Shipyard Limited (HSL) before the Indian Council of Arbitration (ICA) be kept in abeyance.
Justice Tushar Rao Gedela passed the direction on HSL's application for interim protection after finding prima facie that the Union Government's decision to exclude Anadolu Deniz from a project for construction of Fleet Support Ships for the Indian Navy was a sovereign decision concerning national security and defence procurement, and therefore non-arbitrable. The Bench observed:
“Surely, if internal security is a sovereign function, then national security, and matters related to defence procurement for the armed forces would clearly fall within the expression “sovereign function”, and the decision taken in such context could be expressed as “sovereign decision”...Having regard to the above analysis and facts, it is clear that the decision of the GoI dated 23.08.2023 is a “decision of the Sovereign”, and in view of the ratio in Vidya Drolia (supra), “non arbitrable”, per se.”
Case Title : Vipsie Hospitalitys Pvt. Ltd. v. Walianet
Case Numbe : CM(M) 1573/2023 & CM APPL. 30269/2024
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 1000
The Delhi High Court on 16 September directed the court which heard Vipsie Hospitalitys Pvt. Ltd.'s challenge to an arbitral award to decide its application seeking perjury proceedings over allegedly forged documents within three months.
Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora held that Vipsie had correctly filed the Section 340 Cr.P.C. application before the court hearing its Section 34 petition against the arbitral award in its dispute with Walianet. The Court also settled that court's jurisdiction to hear the application. The Bench observed:
“In the considered opinion of this Court, the liberty granted to the Petitioner to seek initiation of appropriate proceedings for perjury against the authorized representative of the Respondent, post conclusion of the arbitration proceedings, have been correctly initiated, by the Petitioner, by filing Section 340 Cr.P.C. application before the Court hearing Section 34 petition under the Act of 1996 i.e., in OMP(COMM) 24/2023.”
Unable To Pay Arbitration Fees? Law Provides No Waiver On Financial Grounds: Delhi High Court
Case Title : Rajesh Kumar v. Union of India & Ors.; M/s Sri Export Co. v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 13882/2026 & W.P.(C) 13884/2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 999
The Delhi High Court has ruled that an arbitral tribunal cannot ordinarily be required to continue adjudicating a claim or counter-claim when the requisite deposit towards arbitration costs has not been paid.
“The statutory scheme, therefore, recognises that an Arbitral Tribunal cannot ordinarily be required to continue adjudicating upon a claim or counter-claim in the absence of the requisite deposit towards the costs of such proceedings,” Justice Amit Mahajan ruled.
The ruling came while dismissing petitions by Rajesh Kumar and Sri Export Co. They had sought waiver or deferment of their share of arbitrator's fees and Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC) administrative charges in separate arbitrations.
Maritime Arbitrator's Prior Ruling On Similar Clause Does Not Establish Bias: Delhi High Court
Case Title : Steel Authority of India Limited v. British Marine PLC
Case Number : FAO(OS) (COMM) 17/2026 & CM APPL. 6374/2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 994
The Delhi High Court on 17 September held that an arbitrator does not become disqualified merely because they previously decided a similar issue in another maritime arbitration involving one of the parties, particularly where specialised maritime disputes draw from a limited pool of domain experts.
A Division Bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Vikas Mahajan upheld the arbitral award in favour of UK-based British Marine PLC and dismissed Steel Authority of India Limited's (SAIL) appeal against a Single Judge's order upholding the award. The Bench held:
“A maritime contract by its very nature requires domain knowledge for quick adjudication. Merely because an Arbitrator has served in another maritime arbitration which involves interpretation of the same or a similar clause by itself cannot raise justifiable doubts as to the independence or impartiality of an Arbitrator.”
Prior Negotiations Cannot Add Arbitration Clause To Signed Contract: Delhi HIgh Court
Case Title : SARR Freights Corporation & Anr. v. Argo Coral Maritime Ltd.
Case Number: FAO(OS) 40/2026 & CM APPL. 19846/2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 993
The Delhi High Court has recently held that prior negotiations and correspondence cannot be used to add an arbitration clause to a clear and unambiguous agreement signed by the parties.
A Division Bench of Justice Vivek Chaudhary and Justice Renu Bhatnagar observed, “It is only where the language is not clear, ambiguous or defective that the surrounding circumstances or other evidence may be looked into, to explain or supply its meaning. The Court is, therefore, barred from relying upon prior negotiations, correspondence or communications to contradict, vary, add to or subtract, from clear and unambiguous terms of the written agreement. The true construction of the contract must depend upon the import of the words used therein, and the intention of the parties is to be ascertained from the language of the agreement itself.”
Pre-Named Arbitrator Can Constitute Tribunal Only If Mutual Consent Continues: Delhi High Court
Case Title Matsya Fincap Pvt. Ltd. v. Mohd Hassinuddin
Case Number FAO (COMM) 221/2024
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 974
On 16 September, the Delhi High Court held that naming an arbitrator in an arbitration agreement may reflect the parties' mutual and continuing consent to his appointment. However, where one party alone appoints the named arbitrator after a dispute arises, the appointment must satisfy the safeguards under Section 12(5) read with the Seventh Schedule to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
A Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetrapal and Shail Jain dismissed Matsya Fincap Pvt. Ltd.'s appeal and upheld the Commercial Court's order setting aside an ex-parte arbitral award in its favour against guarantor Mohd. Hassinuddin. The judges held:
“A named arbitrator may validly constitute the tribunal where the designation itself represents the parties' mutual and continuing consent to such constitution. However, where the record demonstrates that one party alone invokes the clause and appoints the named person after the dispute has arisen, the Court is required to examine the appointment in the context of the statutory safeguards contained in the A&C Act.”
Two-Year Delay In Pronouncing Arbitral Award Not Enough To Set It Aside: Delhi High Court
Case Title Unison Hotels Private Limited v. IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Limited
Case Number FAO(OS) (COMM) 29/2026 & CM APPL. 11008/2026
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 975
The Delhi High Court has held that a two-year delay in pronouncing an arbitral award cannot, by itself, be a ground to set aside the award unless the delay is unexplained and is shown to have adversely affected the findings.
A Division Bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Vinod Kumar made the observation while setting aside a single judge's order.
The order had set aside a ₹65.12 crore arbitral award in favour of Unison Hotels Private Limited against IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Limited
“Delay in its rendition does not vitiate an arbitral award, unless it is positively demonstrated and held that the delay fatally impacted the findings in the award,” the bench observed.
'Vague Intuition' Of Arbitrator Bias Not Enough To Set Aside Award: Delhi High Court
Case Title M/s Lanco-Rani (JV) v. M/s National Highways Authority of India
Case Number OMP(COMM) 145/2017
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 969
The Delhi High Court has recently dismissed a challenge to an arbitral award, holding that a belated suspicion of bias cannot by itself justify interference with an award.
“According to this Court, a vague intuition of biasness at such a belated stage or a simple suspicion by an unhappy party of biasness is not enough to claim biasness, as any such allegation must rest on solid facts, clear evidence, or statutory conflicts,” Justice Om Prakash Shukla held.
The court was hearing a petition filed by Lanco-Rani (JV) under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, challenging a majority arbitral award in its dispute with the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI).
No Separate Signature Needed On Invoice Arbitration Clause If Parties Acted On It: Delhi High Court
Case Title M/s Tinna Rubber and Infrastructure Limited v. Mr. Pankaj Gandhi
Case Number ARB.P. 745/2026 & I.A. 11290/2026; CNR No. DLHC010176142026
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 966
The Delhi High Court on 9 September held that the absence of a separate signature on an arbitration clause printed on the reverse of invoices does not, by itself, negate the existence of an arbitration agreement where the invoices were received and acted upon.
Justice Om Prakash Shukla referred the commercial dispute between Tinna Rubber and Infrastructure Limited and Pankaj Gandhi to arbitration and appointed Advocate Mansvini Jain as the sole arbitrator. The Bench observed:
“The Respondent's principal objection is that the terms contained in Clause 18 of the agreement were never separately signed or accepted by him. However, mere absence of separate signature on the reverse/overleaf of the invoices, in the facts of the present case, does not by itself conclude the issue against the existence of an arbitration agreement.”
Delhi High Court Constitutes Tribunal For D P Jain-NHAI Dispute, Allows Change In SAROD Procedure
Case Title D P Jain Bangalore Chennai Expressways Private Limited v. National Highways Authority of India & Ors.
Case Number O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 385/2026
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 972
The Delhi High Court on 10 September constituted a three-member Arbitral Tribunal to adjudicate disputes between D P Jain Bangalore Chennai Expressways Private Limited and the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) arising from the termination of a Concession Agreement for construction of a section of the Bangalore-Chennai Expressway.
Justice Sachin Datta constituted the Tribunal after both parties jointly agreed to depart from the arbitration procedure prescribed under their agreement, which required disputes to be referred to the Society for Affordable Resolution of Disputes (SAROD). The Bench observed:
“The stipulation in an arbitration agreement as to the institution under whose aegis the arbitration is to be conducted, and as to the manner in which the Arbitral Tribunal is to be constituted, is a matter of contract between the parties and is always open to variation by mutual consent. Where such consent is arrived at in the course of hearing and is recorded in the order of the Court, the arbitration agreement stands modified pro tanto.”
Case Title State Bank of India v. K R Anand
Case Number O.M.P. (COMM) 69/2024 & I.A. 2596/2024
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 965
On 15 September, the Delhi High Court partly set aside an arbitral award in favour of contractor K.R. Anand in a dispute with State Bank of India (SBI) over the construction of 76 residential flats for its officers in Noida.
Justice Avneesh Jhingan noted that an arbitrator cannot award overhead losses using the Emden formula without evidence establishing the actual loss suffered or showing that such loss was difficult or impossible to prove, while upholding some portions of the award while setting aside awards towards overhead expenditure and Price Variation Adjustment (PVA) for the project's third extension. The Bench held:
“However, even on a fair reading of the award as a whole no reason emanates for the arbitrator accepting the calculation based on the Emden formula without there being evidence to prove the loss suffered or that it was difficult or impossible to prove the actual loss suffered. The award of claim no.1 falls within the teeth of Section 31(3) of the Act.”
MSME Registration Cannot Revive Abandoned Arbitration Claims: Delhi High Court
Case Title : Shri Krishan Grit Co. v. Continental Engineering Corporation
Case Number : ARB. A. (COMM) 30/2024 & I.A. 29603/2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 953
The Delhi High Court has ruled that a supplier cannot revive claims abandoned in an earlier arbitration merely by subsequently obtaining registration under the Micro, Small, and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006.
Justice Tushar Rao Gedela observed that a party that did not challenge the termination of the earlier arbitration cannot use subsequent MSME registration to reopen the same claims.
The court held, “Having not availed the same, in the opinion of this Court, a party cannot be permitted to re-open such abandoned claims by mere registration under the MSME Act, 2006, subsequently.”
Delhi High Court Says Failed Conciliation Talks Cannot Be Used To Decide Arbitration Claims
Case Title : Eco Green Buildtech Pvt Ltd v. Vikartan Infrastructure Pvt Ltd
Case Number : O.M.P. (COMM) 293/2023 & I.A. 14489/2023
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 951
The Delhi High Court has ruled that material recorded during unsuccessful conciliation cannot later be relied upon to decide the same dispute in arbitration.
Justice Avneesh Jhingan observed that the confidentiality of such proceedings must continue even after a settlement attempt fails.
“The proceedings during conciliation cannot be considered and relied upon in case the arbitration of dispute is necessitated. The proceedings during conciliation are different but when an issue is contested equal opportunity is to be provided to both the parties to present their case,” the court observed.
It added that when an issue remains contested, both parties must be given an equal opportunity to present their case.
The ruling came in a challenge by Eco Green Buildtech Pvt Ltd against arbitral awards in its dispute with Vikartan Infrastructure Pvt Ltd over construction of the Sikka Kamya Greens project in Sector 10, Greater Noida. The court ultimately set aside both the February 28, 2023 award and March 27, 2023 additional award.
Case Title : Flemingo (DFS) Private Limited v. Airports Authority of India
Case Number : ARB.P. 853/2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 938
The Delhi High Court on 7 September referred a dispute between Flemingo (DFS) Private Limited and the Airports Authority of India (AAI) concerning the operation of duty-free shops at Amritsar Airport to arbitration.
Justice Jasmeet Singh appointed Justice Shalinder Kaur (Retd.) as the sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes, holding that Flemingo's earlier communications did not amount to invocation of arbitration and that its petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was within limitation. The Bench observed:
“In the present case, the notices, which are allegedly the notices invoking arbitration, when read in totality, show that the petitioner is seeking resolution of its grievances and specifically states that in the event the grievances of the petitioner remain unresolved, the petitioner will resort to arbitration and had not invoked Arbitration at that point. Thus, the said notices cannot be construed as notices invoking Arbitration and are merely a communication that enumerates the intention of the petitioner to amicably solve the dispute without resorting to the arbitral clause as envisaged in the Agreement.The notices clearly show that there was no quantification or demand by the petitioner or any rejection of claim by the respondent.”
Delhi High Court Restrains TruCap Finance From Disposing Assets Worth Rs. 1.70 Crore
Case Title : UGRO Capital Limited v. TruCap Finance Limited & Anr.
Case Number : O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 371/2026 & I.A. 23494/2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 936
The Delhi High Court on 1 September restrained TruCap Finance Limited from creating third-party rights or encumbrances over, or disposing of, assets worth up to Rs. 1.70 crore in a dispute with UGRO Capital Limited.
Justice Om Prakash Shukla also appointed Advocate Manisha Suri as the sole arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute arising from a co-lending arrangement between the two non-banking financial companies. The Bench observed:
“Having heard learned Senior counsel for the Petitioner and perused the petition along with the documents annexed thereto, this Court is satisfied that the balance of convenience lies in favour of the Petitioner, and that unless the Petitioner is protected by way of interim measures, the Petitioner would be exposed to irreparable harm inasmuch as any Award that may be passed in the intended arbitration would be reduced to a paper decree.”
Legal Heir Can Challenge Arbitral Award Despite Not Participating In Proceedings: Delhi High Court
Case Title : Faisal Ahmed v. Asian Hotels North Ltd & Anr.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 10751/2026 & CM APPL. 49847/2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 935
The Delhi High Court has held that a legal representative of a deceased party can challenge an arbitral award even if the legal representative did not participate in the arbitration.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma was dealing with a plea by Faisal Ahmed, one of the nine legal heirs of late Sultan Ahmed, who sought to participate in arbitration proceedings concerning his father's rights in a shop at the Hyatt Regency Shopping Arcade, New Delhi.
The court declined to stop the arbitration, which had already reached the stage of final arguments, but held that Faisal and the other legal heirs would have a remedy against the eventual award.
Explaining why Faisal could not be treated as remediless merely because he had not participated in the arbitration, the court relied on the statutory scheme governing legal representatives of deceased parties. It observed that an award can bind persons claiming under a deceased party and that the right to challenge such an award must also be available to them.
“The said remedy would, therefore, also be available to the petitioner and to the other legal heirs of late Sh. Sultan Ahmed. Any grievance regarding want of notice or opportunity to present their case, as well as any other ground available under Section 34 of the A&C Act, can accordingly be raised at the appropriate stage,” Justice Sharma observed.
Case Title : Amazon Seller Services Private Limited v. Goodluck Buildtech Private Limited & Ors.
Case Number : O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 443/2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 1031
The Delhi High Court on 28 September appointed a Local Commissioner to inspect and prepare an inventory of Amazon Seller Services Private Limited's assets lying at premises leased from Goodluck Buildtech Private Limited.
Justice Om Prakash Shukla also appointed former Supreme Court judge Justice S. Ravindra Bhat as sole arbitrator to adjudicate the lease dispute between the two parties, involving an indemnity claim of approximately Rs. 182.50 crore and fixtures and fit-outs stated to be worth around Rs. 120 crore. The Bench observed:
“In view of the parties' mutual consent to refer the dispute forming the subject matter of the present petition to arbitration, this Court considers it appropriate that commencement of arbitral proceedings shall not be delayed.”
Case Title : Kurukshetra Expressway Private Limited v. National Highways Authority of India
Case Number : FAO(OS) (COMM) 211/2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 1023
The Delhi High Court recently observed that contractual words restricting termination liability must be given effect, holding that parties to a long-term public infrastructure concession could not have inserted such limitations without intending them to operate as a cap.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Shail Jain made the observation while upholding the setting aside of an arbitral award granting ₹911.13 crore to Kurukshetra Expressway Private Limited as termination payment from the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI).
“Words of restriction and qualification deliberately incorporated into a definition clause must be given meaning and effect.", it ruled
"Their purpose is precisely to cap the outer limit of the obligation being defined...... This court is unable to accept that commercially sophisticated parties, negotiating a public infrastructure concession running into decades, inserted words of limitation into the very definition of the Respondent's termination liability without intending them to limit anything.”, it added.
Case Title : M/s URC Construction (P) Ltd. v. Airports Authority of India
Case Number : OMP (ENF.) (COMM.) 155/2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 922
The Delhi High Court has laid down detailed guidelines to its registry for ensuring compliance with stamp duty and registration requirements in petitions seeking enforcement of domestic arbitral awards.
The directions come after the court held that an inadequately stamped arbitral award cannot be acted upon at the enforcement stage merely because the decree holder subsequently deposits the deficient stamp duty.
Where adequate stamp duty is sought to be paid after the permissible period, the statutory procedure, including impounding and payment of penalty wherever applicable, must be followed.
A Bench of Justice Om Prakash Shukla ruled:
“An insufficiently stamped arbitral award sought to be enforced is to be impounded under Section 33 and dealt with either under Section 35 or 38(2).”
“There is no provision in the Stamp Act which permits Decree Holders to deposit adequate stamp duty on an arbitral award after lapse of one month from its execution unilaterally and without payment of penalty (if applicable).”, it added.
Case Title : Omaxe Ltd. v. Asha Saini
Case Number : FAO (COMM) 53/2022 & FAO (COMM) 91/2022
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 917
The Delhi High Court has ruled that a homebuyer can claim compensation for delayed possession through arbitration even though remedies are also available under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, and the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
“Merely because the Respondent elected to invoke the arbitration agreement instead of pursuing remedies under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 or RERA, it cannot be deprived of compensation otherwise legally payable for delayed possession The substantive right to claim such compensation is founded in Section 55 of the Act of 1872, while the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and RERA statutes provides additional forums and statutory mechanisms for enforcement of that right.,” the court observed.
It held that the substantive right to claim such compensation is founded in Section 55 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, while RERA and the Consumer Protection Act provide additional forums and statutory mechanisms for enforcing that right.
The Division Bench of Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora dismissed two appeals filed by Omaxe Ltd. and upheld arbitral awards in favour of homebuyer Asha Saini. The arbitrator had awarded compensation at 15% per annum for the delay in handing over possession of two flats.
Bank's Lack Of Consent No Bar To Arbitrator Appointment Under SARFAESI: Delhi High Court
Case Title : Indian Bank v. Bank of Baroda & Ors.
Case Number: ARB.P. 1191/2026; CNR No. DLHC010318142026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 1022
The Delhi High Court on 25 September held that a bank's lack of consent does not bar appointment of an arbitrator where an inter-se dispute between banks falls within the statutory arbitration mechanism under the SARFAESI Act.
Justice Om Prakash Shukla appointed Advocate Mohit Kumar Mudgal as sole arbitrator to adjudicate Indian Bank's dispute with Bank of Baroda and others over competing claims of priority and charge over certain mortgaged properties. The Bench observed:
“The absence of consent does not, in the facts of the present case, constitute an impediment to the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act. Section 11 of the SARFAESI Act constitutes a special statutory mechanism for resolution of disputes relating to securitisation, reconstruction or non-payment of amounts due, where such disputes arise between the entities specifically contemplated therein, including banks and financial institutions.”
Delhi High Court Declines 'Eleventh Hour' Auditor Appointment In Hamdard Tax Row, Allows Arbitration
Case Title : Hammad Ahmed v. Abdul Majeed & Ors.
Case Number : EX.P. 66/2025 & EX.APPL.(OS) 1201/2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 1039
On 29 September, the Delhi High Court refused to appoint an independent statutory auditor in a dispute concerning the renewal of Hamdard Laboratories India's tax-exempt registration and instead permitted Hammad Ahmed to seek appropriate directions from the arbitral tribunal.
Justice Tushar Rao Gedela found that the objections to Form 10AB were intertwined with a property segregation dispute already pending before the arbitral tribunal, and stated that appointing an independent auditor at the “eleventh hour” could “prove disastrous for both the parties”. The Bench observed:
“Since filling up and filing of Form 10AB and the objections raised by the DH are intrinsically intertwined with the segregation of properties, some of which, are admittedly subject matter of arbitration, it appears to this Court, and having due regard to the fact that there is no urgency, the prayers sought in the present application are referable to arbitration.”
Case Title : Jindal ITF Limited v. NTPC Limited & Anr.
Case Number: FAO(OS) (COMM) 45/2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 916
The Delhi High Court has referred Jindal ITF Limited's dispute with NTPC Limited over an arbitral award worth about ₹1,889 crore to a third judge or a larger Bench after the two judges differed on whether the award should be upheld.
The award arose from disputes over delays and deviations in a project for transporting imported coal to NTPC's Farakka Thermal Power Plant
While Justice C. Hari Shankar upheld the award on claims concerning project delays and shortfalls, the guaranteed supply of coal during the first two years of operations, and damages arising from NTPC's termination of the agreement, Justice Om Prakash Shukla agreed with the Single Judge's decision to set aside the award on those claims.
The bench observed that the disagreement would have to be referred for further consideration.
Delhi High Court Revives Otsuka-Trans Engineers 'NIL' Award, Says Extra Work Claim Was Not Proved
Case Title : Otsuka Chemical (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Trans Engineers India Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : FAO (OS) (COMM) 234/2024
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 908
The Delhi High Court on 1 September restored a “NIL” arbitral award rejecting Trans Engineers India Pvt. Ltd.'s Rs. 28.37 crore claim for additional work in Otsuka Chemical (India) Pvt. Ltd.'s Rs. 71 crore turnkey “Lion Project” for expansion of its chemical manufacturing plant at Kotputli, Rajasthan.
A Division Bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Madhu Jain held that the Single Judge had exceeded the limited scope of review under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 by re-appreciating evidence and substituting the arbitrator's interpretation of the contractual terms with an interpretation it considered more appropriate. The judges held:
“The learned Single Judge, in fact, seems to have proceeded on what would have been a more appropriate interpretation of contractual terms, which, in our respectful opinion, is to travel beyond the scope of scrutiny of an Award under Section 34 of the A&C Act.”
Case Title : Hanson Agro Limited v. GAIL (India) Limited
Case Number : O.M.P. (COMM) 356/2016 & I.A. 9148/2016
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 910
The Delhi High Court has recently ruled that merely filing a challenge to an arbitral award after the 2015 amendments to the arbitration law does not, by itself, make the amended rules on arbitrator eligibility applicable to an arbitration that commenced earlier.
Justice Jasmeet Singh observed that where arbitration proceedings had commenced before October 23, 2015, the validity of the arbitrator's appointment must be examined under the law applicable to those proceedings.
The subsequent amendments cannot be applied retrospectively merely because the award was delivered or challenged after they came into force.
Case Title : DC Multi Modal Park Pvt Ltd v. Maharashtra MMLP Pvt. Ltd & Anr.
Case Number : O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 145/2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 906
The Delhi High Court on 1 September dismissed a second petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 filed by DC Multi Modal Park Pvt. Ltd., after noting that the company had obtained a status quo order without advance-serving the successful bidder, even though it had the bidder's complete contact details.
Justice Tushar Rao Gedela held that advance service in proceedings seeking interim relief is essential to ensure that parties who may be affected by an order get an opportunity to be heard and that neither side gains an unfair procedural advantage. The Bench observed:
“The idea behind rules prescribing advance service is clearly laudable. In that, all parties who may be severely or drastically impacted by any order that might be passed by this Court ought to be afforded an opportunity of hearing so as to ensure a level playing field.”
Case Title : Daiichi Sankyo Company, Limited v. Malvinder Mohan Singh and Ors.
Case Number : EX.APPL.(OS) 3764/2022, EX.APPL.(OS) 1615/2025 & EX.APPL.(OS) 3763/2022 in O.M.P.(EFA)(COMM.) 6/2016
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 900
On 31 August, the Delhi High Court ordered a comprehensive forensic audit into the alleged dissipation of assets involving Fortis Healthcare Limited (FHL), its former promoters Malvinder Mohan Singh and Shivinder Mohan Singh, their downstream entities, and 17 banks and financial institutions.
Justice Subramonium Prasad directed S Ramanand Aiyar & Co. to reconstruct the chain of transactions involving Fortis shares, identify the persons and entities involved, and examine whether Court orders were evaded to frustrate enforcement of a foreign arbitral award in favour of Daiichi Sankyo Company Limited. The Bench observed:
“The conduct of the forensic audit is not an exercise in futility. The forensic audit will pin point the exact manner by which this Court was deceived, the dramatis personae who aided and abetted in evasion of Court Orders by misleading the Court, so that the Court can take steps by fixing liability on the perpetrators of dissipation of shares to ensure that the majesty of law is upheld.”
Orissa High Court
Writ Against Order U/S 37 Arbitration Act Not Barred By Second Appeal Restriction: Orissa High Court
Case Title : State of Odisha and others versus M/s.Dhanurdhar Champatiray, Proprietor and Special Class Contractor, Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar
Case Number : W.P.(C) No.35289, 35291, 35309, 35312, 35317 of 2025 And W.P.(C) No.3223, 44, 6384 & 8151 of 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (ORI) 24
The Orissa High Court on 21 September held that a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution can be maintained against an order passed by a District Judge under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, despite Section 37(3) barring a second appeal.
Justice B.P. Routray rejected the preliminary objection to the maintainability of the writ petitions filed by the state and other, holding that the High Court's constitutional jurisdiction does not constitute a second appellate remedy. The Bench observed:
“it would be incorrect to refuse the Petitioners to approach this Court under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India to challenge the order of the District Judge passed under Section 37(1) of 1996 Act. Thus, the preliminary objection raised by the Opposite Parties with regard to maintainability of the writ petitions in terms of Section 37(3) of 1996 Act is overruled.”
Allahabad High Court
Case Title Tentiwala Products Limited v. Manoj Industrial Enterprises
Case Number APPEAL UNDER SECTION 37 OF ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996 No. - 3 of 2026
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC (ALL) 75
The Allahabad High Court has held that an arbitral tribunal's decision rejecting a claim as time-barred is a final arbitral award.
It said that a separate observation terminating the proceedings under Section 32(2)(c) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, was unnecessary and could not be used to deny the claimant a challenge to the award.
Referring to Section 32(2)(c), the bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Kshitij Shailendra held
“The said provision has nothing to do in a case where the Arbitral Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the reference/claim made is barred by limitation. The order, in fact, would be covered by provisions of Section 32(1) of the Act which provide for termination of arbitral proceedings by way of final arbitral award which, in the present case, is on account of the Council coming to the conclusion that the claim made was time barred.”
Kerala High Court
Case Title KLM Axiva Finvest Limited v. Bijitha Shajan & Ors
Case Number A.R. No. 53 of 2026
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC(KER) 179
The Kerala High Court has ruled that the time spent in an earlier arbitration cannot be excluded from the limitation period merely because an execution court later finds that the resulting arbitral award is unenforceable or a nullity.
Section 43(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, provides for exclusion of the period between the commencement of an arbitration and the date on which a court sets aside the arbitral award while calculating the limitation period for subsequent proceedings, including a fresh arbitration, concerning the same dispute.
Justice S. Manu held that this exclusion applies only when a court actually orders that the award be set aside under Sections 34 or 37 of the Act.
An execution court's finding that an award is unenforceable or a nullity cannot be treated as an order setting aside the award.
“On a literal reading, the phrase 'an arbitral award be set aside' used in sub-section (4) of Section 43 does not allow for the inclusion of any other circumstance within the purview of the clause,” the court observed.
The court further held that Section 43(4) “would apply only when the Court orders that an arbitral award be set aside under Section 34 or Section 37 of the Act."
An execution court's order holding an award unenforceable or a nullity “cannot be equated with an order passed under Section 34 or Section 37 of the Act.”
Case Title : Antony Wazhson & Anr. v. Mayyanad Regional Co-operative Bank No.94 & Ors.
Case Number : WP(C) No. 34660 of 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(KER) 178
The Kerala High Court has held that a co-operative society's failure to produce a Managing Committee resolution before the Arbitrator does not invalidate arbitration proceedings initiated by the society.
The court ruled that the requirement under Rule 67(2) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969, is directory and not mandatory
“However, I am of the opinion that, though the word 'shall' is used in Rule 67(2) of the 1969 Rules, the provision cannot be construed as mandatory, and it can only be held to be directory. Thus, the failure to produce a resolution before the Arbitrator cannot be fatal to the arbitration proceedings initiated by the Society. It is settled law that the use of the word 'shall'' in a statutory provision does not by itself indicate that the provision is mandatory, and the word 'shall' in suitable circumstances may be read as directory and not mandatory, especially when the provision is procedural.”, it ruled.
Justice Gopinath P. made the ruling while dealing with a challenge by a borrower's wife and son to arbitration proceedings initiated by Mayyanad Regional Co-operative Bank No. 94.
Executing Court Cannot Reject Award Where Parties Mutually Nominated Arbitrator: Kerala High Court
Case Title : M/s Hedge Finance Limited v. Sangeetha A.V
Case Number : OP(C) No. 2206 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(KER) 174
The Kerala High Court on 4 August held that an executing court cannot refuse to enforce an arbitral award on the ground of unilateral appointment of the arbitrator when the parties themselves had mutually nominated the arbitrator in their agreement.
Justice Easwaran set aside an order of the Additional District Court, Kozhikode, which had dismissed an execution petition filed by Hedge Finance Limited to enforce an arbitral award for Rs. 3.47 lakh with 18% interest against Sangeetha A.V. The Bench held:
“In the scheme of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the opposite party, if aggrieved by the award, has to apply for setting aside the same by filing an application under Section 34 of the Act. If the party has not moved any application for setting aside the award, the enquiry under Section 47 of the CPC cannot be enlarged to such an extent, so as to obliterate the award itself unless the award is found to be a nullity."
Rajasthan High Court
Case Title : The Executive Engineer, PWD v. M/s. Trimurti Construction & Anr.
Case Number : D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1905/2023
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(RAJ) 42
The Rajasthan High Court has reiterated that an arbitral award based solely on pleadings, without framing issues concerning serious disputed facts or considering evidence, violates the principles of natural justice.
It further held that such an award is against the public policy of India under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Relying on several apex court precedents, the court ruled,
“Thus, the above Legal precedents make it clear that an arbitral award issued without properly identifying key issues of serious disputed facts—and without evidence or a fair hearing—violates natural justice. When a decision is based solely on pleadings, especially where facts remain contested, it breaches fundamental principles of justice," the court ruled.
The bench of Dr. Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Praveer Bhatnagar further held that an arbitral award made contrary to the core procedures and principles of natural justice would be against the public policy of India under Section 34 of the Act.
Karnataka High Court
Case Title : Sri A.N. Srinivasa Reddy v. Maarq Spaces and Properties LLP & Ors. (with connected matters)
Case Number : COMAP No. 359 of 2026 c/w COMAP Nos. 350 and 376 of 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(KAR) 178
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed three appeals challenging an interim restraint on dealings with a property in Bengaluru Rural District, holding that there was no point examining the challenges when only two days remained before the 90-day protection was due to expire.
A Division Bench of Justice D.K. Singh and Justice H. Shanthi Bhushan, in an order dated September 11, noted that the restraint imposed by the Commercial Court on June 15 would expire on September 13.
The bench, therefore, held that the appeals had “lost implication”.
“This order is dated 15.06.2026. 90 days is expiring on 13.09.2026 and therefore, these appeals have lost implication. Accordingly, appeals are dismissed.”
Karnataka High Court Upholds Award Rejecting ₹1.37 Crore Contractor Claim In Mysuru Zoo Park Project
Case Title : Sri C. C. Kondaiah v. Mysore City Corporation & Anr.
Case Number : Commercial Appeal No. 82 of 2023
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(KAR) 173
The Karnataka High Court on 23 September dismissed contractor C. C. Kondaiah's appeal against the Commercial Court's decision not to interfere with an arbitral award rejecting his claims for additional expenditure, price escalation and idling costs against the Mysore City Corporation.
A Division Bench of Justices Anu Sivaraman and T.P. Vivekananda reiterated that an appellate court cannot reappreciate evidence or substitute the reasoning of an arbitral tribunal while exercising jurisdiction under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The judges observed:
“We also notice that the grounds raised by the appellant to challenge the order of the Commercial Court are essentially those falling within the realm of findings of fact. The learned Sole Arbitrator had considered the contentions of the parties and had rendered finding on such contentions. It is trite law that reappriciation of the evidence or a substitution of opinion or reasoning is not warranted in an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.”
Case Title : HMT Limited v. C. Rajamma (since deceased) by LRs & Connected Matters
Case Number : MFA No. 9565 of 2018 c/w MFA Nos. 9564, 9566–9571 of 2018
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(KAR) 169
The Karnataka High Court has modified the interest payable by HMT on ₹1.39 crore in damages awarded to eight former employees-turned-entrepreneurs for the loss caused by a shortfall in the assured workload.
The entrepreneurs will get 20% annual interest on the damages only for the period during which they were repaying their Karnataka State Financial Corporation (KSFC) loans. For the remaining period, HMT will have to pay interest at 12% per annum.
A Division Bench of Justice Anu Sivaraman and Justice T.P. Vivekananda held that the higher rate could not continue after the KSFC loan liability was discharged.
“The grant of interest at the rate of 20% per annum could be held reasonable only for the period during which the respondents/claimants have repaid the loan amount to KSFC. Once the financial liability of KSFC is discharged, there was no liability of the claimants to pay interest on the loan amount.”, it ruled.
Karnataka High Court Sets Aside ₹13.08 Crore Award To L&T In Bengaluru Metro Contract Dispute
Case Title: Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Limited v. Larsen and Toubro Limited & connected appeal;
Case Number Commercial Appeal No. 124 of 2025 C/W Commercial Appeal No. 116 of 2025
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 165
The Karnataka High Court has recently set aside parts (around ₹13.08 Crore) of an arbitral award arising from a ₹303.29 crore Bengaluru Metro construction contract between Larsen & Toubro Limited (L&T) and Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Limited (BMRCL).
The court found shortcomings in the tribunal's treatment of claims relating to reduced parapet quantities, revised rates for 18 delayed pier locations and unpaid reinforcement quantities. It also set aside the tribunal's finding on L&T's entitlement to time-related costs during the prolonged contract period.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice K.S. Hemalekha observed: “The court cannot re-appreciate or re-validate evidence and supplant its opinion in place of the Arbitral Tribunal in proceedings under Section 34 of the A&C Act. However, it is not disputed that if the Arbitral Tribunal has disregarded evidence or material which is relevant, the arbitral award would be liable to be set aside.”
Case Title The Commissioner v. The Karnataka Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council and Another
Case Number Writ Appeal No. 1490 of 2024 (GM-RES)
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC(KAR) 160
The Karnataka High Court on 3 September held that the State cannot circumvent the statutory limitation for challenging an arbitral award passed by the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council by invoking the High Court's writ jurisdiction for a merits review.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice K.S. Hemalekha allowed the writ appeal filed by the Commissioner, Bhoomi Monitoring Cell, only to the extent of holding that the State's writ petition challenging a Rs. 29.32 lakh award in favour of Connoinseur Electronics Pvt. Ltd. ought not to have been entertained on merits. The judges held:
“Plainly, the appellant cannot be permitted to overcome the period of limitation by avoiding the statutory remedy and seeking the extraordinary remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.”
One Party's Arbitrator Cannot Act As Sole Arbitrator If Other Fails To Nominate: Karnataka High Court
Case Title Lotus Landmarks (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. RVP City Owners & Ors
Case Number MFA No. 103181 of 2022 (AA)
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC(KAR) 161
The Karnataka High Court on 31 August held that where an arbitration agreement gives both parties the right to nominate an arbitrator, one party's nominee cannot proceed as the sole arbitrator merely because the other party failed to make its nomination. The party that has exercised its right to nominate must instead approach the Court under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
A Division Bench of Justices S. Sunil Dutt Yadav and K.G. Shanthi allowed Lotus Landmarks' appeal against the dismissal of its challenge to an arbitral award, holding that the nominee appointed by RVP City Owners could not have proceeded as the sole arbitrator. The judges observed:
“Where an Arbitration Clause provides for nomination of an Arbitrator by each of the parties, the exercise of such option by one of the parties and non-exercise of such option by the other party does not ipso facto lead to abandonment of procedure prescribed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act and resort to proceedings by a nominee of one of the parties is impermissible.”
30-Day Limit For Correcting Award Is Inflexible, Applies To NH Act Arbitration: Karnataka High Court
Case Title : NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA vs C. PRAMOD
Case Number : MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3756 OF 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 155
The Karnataka High Court has held that the 30-day limit for seeking correction or interpretation of an arbitral award cannot be extended, and a belated application cannot revive the time limit for challenging the award, including in arbitrations under the National Highways Act, 1956.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice K.S. Hemalekha dismissed an appeal filed by the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) against the 13 February 2026 order of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural, which had dismissed NHAI's Section 34 petition and confirmed the arbitral award. The judges held:
“We do not find any basis for the said contention. Section 3G(6) of the NH Act expressly provides that the provisions of the A&C Act would apply to arbitration under the NH Act, subject to the provisions of the NH Act. There is no provision under the NH Act, which would exclude the time period stipulated under Section 33 of the A&C Act.”
Case Title : Mr. A.R. Krishnamani v. Lakepoint Builders Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.
Case Number : Writ Petition No. 33403 of 2025 (GM-RES)
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 151
The Karnataka High Court on 25 August partly allowed villa buyer A.R. Krishnamani's petition and set aside an order of the Bengaluru Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge refusing to take on record Right to Information (RTI) replies and other official documents concerning a disputed occupancy certificate.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj held that a party challenging an arbitral award on the ground of fraud can produce additional evidence before a Court exercising jurisdiction under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 only in rare and exceptional circumstances where such material is necessary to decide the fraud allegation. The Bench observed:
“A party challenging an award on the ground of fraud has no right, as a matter of course, to produce additional evidence before the Section 34 Court. Such permission may be granted only in a rare and exceptional case, where the conditions set out above are satisfied and where the reception of the material is absolutely necessary to decide the clause (b) ground, with a corresponding opportunity to the other side to meet it.”
Calcutta High Court
Case Title : Ambica Beri v. Forum Atmosphere Flat Owner's Association
Case Number : FMAT No. 342 of 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(CAL) 235
On Monday, 28 September, the Calcutta High Court held that an arbitration clause contained in a company's Articles of Association operates as an independent agreement and does not make disputes covered by the clause subject exclusively to the jurisdiction of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT).
A Division Bench comprising Justices Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Sandip Kumar De made the observation while allowing an appeal filed by Ambica Beri against the District Judge's refusal to grant interim relief. It observed:
“Since the arbitration clause is an independent contract of its own, it operates beyond the purview of the Articles of Association and is not restricted to the architecture of the 2013 Act.”
Pending Arbitration Does Not Bar Wilful Defaulter Proceedings Against Borrower: Calcutta High Court
Case Title : Kitply Industries Limited & Ors. v. Reserve Bank of India & Anr.
Case Number : W.P.A. No. 24869 of 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(CAL) 234
On 23 September, the Calcutta High Court held that the pendency of arbitration proceedings cannot prevent a lender from issuing a show-cause notice to declare a borrower a wilful defaulter.
Justice Krishna Rao dismissed Kitply Industries' writ petition challenging SREI Equipment Finance Ltd.'s (SEFL) show-cause notice alleging that it had disposed of assets securing its credit facility without the lender's approval. The Bench observed:
“Pendency of the arbitration proceeding could not debar the issuance of show cause notice"
Case Title CHAKVRIGU COOPERATIVE LABOUR CONTACT & CONSTRUCTION SOCIETY LIMITED & ANR. VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.
Case Number WPA 19048 of 2019
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 225
The Calcutta High Court has held that where a contract contains an arbitration clause, parties have an alternative remedy of invoking arbitration, particularly when the dispute involves questions of fact that cannot be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta, relying on the judgment of Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and others reiterated that writ jurisdiction may still be exercised in exceptional circumstances including violation of fundamental rights or principles of natural justice,or where proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction.
"When there is an arbitration clause, the parties have an alternative remedy to approach for arbitration for their disputes whatsoever. This court is conscious that despite the availability of the alternative remedy. With reference to the decision of Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and others, it is clearly established that the High Court may still exercise its writ jurisdiction on discretionary power when it is found (i) where the writ petitioner seeks enforcement of any of the fundamental rights; (ii) where there is violation of the principles of natural justice; (iii) where the orders or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act and rule is challenged."
Case Title Amal Krishna Dey v. Central Warehousing Corporation
Case Number AO-COM 35 of 2025
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC(CAL) 216
The Calcutta High Court has upheld the setting aside of an arbitral award passed by an arbitrator appointed unilaterally by the Managing Director of the Central Warehousing Corporation.
It held that a contractual clause permitting such appointment could not override the post-dispute written waiver requirement under Section 12(5)
A Division Bench of Justice Debangsu Basak and Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta dismissed an appeal filed by contractor Amal Krishna Dey against the Commercial Court's decision to set aside an award of over ₹16 lakh in his favour.
The Court held that Section 12(5) overrides prior agreements permitting an interested party's managing director to appoint the sole arbitrator. The ineligibility could be waived only through an express written agreement executed after the dispute arose.
The Bench observed:
“The proviso to Section 12(5) permits only one route out: an express agreement in writing entered into after the disputes have arisen. A pre-dispute clause of general application, drafted into the standard conditions of contract, does not meet that description, however, clearly worded.”
Arbitrator's Elevation As Judge Did Not Affect Award Passed Before Taking Oath: Calcutta High Court
Case Title The Hooghly Mills Company Limited v. Acumen (J) Marketing Private Limited
Case Number AP-COM/607/2026
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC(CAL) 217
The Calcutta High Court has held that the elevation of an arbitrator as a High Court judge did not affect the validity of an arbitral award passed by him. The award was passed hours before he took oath as a judge on the same day.
The order was passed by Justice Gaurang Kanth, who rejected Acumen (J) Marketing Private Limited's objection to sole arbitrator Partha Pratim Roy's competence after his elevation as an Additional Judge of the Calcutta High Court.
The bench noted that the award was rendered at 2:00 p.m. on August 8, 2026, while Roy assumed judicial office only upon taking the oath at 4:15 p.m. that day.
The Bench observed, “The learned Arbitrator assumed judicial office upon taking oath at 4:15 p.m. on 8th August, 2026, whereas the award was passed earlier that day, at 2:00 p.m., prior to his elevation. The objection, therefore, does not affect the validity or publication of the award.”
Case Title Innovel Energy Services Pvt. Ltd. (Previously: Environ Solar Pvt. Ltd.) v. Elevar Digitel Infrastructure Private Limited
Case Number AP-COM 385 of 2026
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC(CAL) 215
The Calcutta High Court has reiterated that the location of an MSME Facilitation Council does not, by itself, determine the territorial jurisdiction of courts over proceedings arising from an arbitral award.
Applying this principle, the court held that an exclusive-jurisdiction clause in favour of the New Delhi courts governed a Section 29A application seeking an extension of the arbitral mandate after an award was passed by the West Bengal Micro Small Enterprises Facilitation Council (WBMSEFC), Kolkata.
Justice Gaurang Kanth observed, “Section 18(3) of the MSMED Act itself provides that where the Facilitation Council proceeds to arbitrate the dispute, the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act shall apply to the dispute as if the arbitration were pursuant to an arbitration agreement under Section 7 of the said Act. Consequently, once the statutory arbitral proceedings culminate in an award, any challenge to, or proceeding arising in relation to, such award is governed by the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The statutory location of the Facilitation Council, therefore, cannot by itself be treated as determinative of the territorial jurisdiction of the Court under Section 2(1)(e) of the Arbitration Act.”
Case Title : Bijay Saha@ Bijoy Saha v. Ajit Saha and Ors
Case Number : FMAT(ARBAWRD) 3 of 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(CAL) 214
The Calcutta High Court on Friday set aside an order of the Darjeeling District Judge restraining a Sole Arbitrator from proceeding with a pending application under Section 33 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, holding that courts must exercise restraint in interfering with an ongoing arbitral process.
A bench of Justice Ravi Kishan Kapur and Justice Supratim Bhattacharya was hearing an appeal against an order of the District Judge, Darjeeling, in a dispute between family members concerning the management and control of family-owned companies.
“The instances of judicial intervention are limited and circumscribed under the Act. The repeated pronouncements by all Courts that when matters are pending before the Arbitrator, the Courts should not unnecessarily interfere with the arbitral process have been disregarded.” it observed.
Following their father's death, the parties referred their disputes to arbitration, resulting in an award dated September 9, 2014. The award was put to execution in 2022. The appellant's subsequent application under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act, alleging omissions and seeking corrections, was dismissed, with liberty to pursue an appropriate remedy.
Case Title : STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LIMITED VS M/S EASTERN MINERALS AND TRADING AGENCY
Case Number : EC-COM 155 OF 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 212
The Calcutta High Court on 7 September held that the period during which execution of an arbitral award was practically unavailable due to binding judicial precedent cannot be counted for computing the limitation period.
Justice Gaurang Kanth allowed Steel Authority of India Limited's (SAIL) execution petition, holding that the period from 29 February 2008 to 22 October 2015 had to be excluded while computing the 12-year limitation period. The Bench held:
“To hold that limitation ran uninterrupted through the very period in which the award-holder's remedy stood paralysed by binding authority would allow the mischief the Amendment was designed to cure to operate as an independent and permanent bar to the Award notwithstanding the cure.”
Calcutta High Court Rejects Reliance Jute Mills' ₹1.09 Cr. Claim Against Over Interest On Interest
Case Title : RELIANCE JUTE MILLS (INTERNATIONAL) LIMITED VERSUS THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
Case Number : EC-COM 594 OF 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 209
The Calcutta High Court on 27 August dismissed Reliance Jute Mills (International) Ltd's execution petition seeking an additional Rs. 1.09 crore from The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd, after finding that Reliance had already received Rs. 8.76 crore under the arbitral award dated 2 March 2020.
Justice Gaurang Kanth held that the amount already paid, together with accrued interest, exceeded the amount payable under the award and that Reliance could not claim further interest by treating accrued interest as part of the principal. The Bench said:
“As against this sum genuinely due under the Award, a sum of Rs. 8,76,59,688/- already stands paid to the Award Holder. It therefore emerges that the amount already paid exceeds, by approximately Rs. 13.7 lakh, the amount actually due on a correct, non-compounded reading of the Award. No further sum is, therefore, payable to the Award holder, and the claim for an additional sum of Rs. 1,09,24,081/- is found to be without merit.”
Once Referred To Arbitration Suit Cannot Remain Pending Before Civil Court: Calcutta High Court
Case Title : Badri Narayan Bhatter and Another v. Hari Narayan Bhatter and Another
Case Number : F.M.A. No. 712 of 2025 with CAN 1 of 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 204
The Calcutta High Court on 31 August held that once a civil court refers parties to arbitration under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the suit does not remain pending before the civil court.
A Division Bench of Justices Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Sandip Kumar De allowed an appeal by Badri Narayan Bhatter and another, restored a partition suit and directed the Trial Court to appoint a Receiver for the disputed Kolkata property. The judges held:
“...Section 8 of the Arbitration Act does not allow for continuance of a suit or retention of the same by the court after an order is passed by the court in the suit under Section 8 of the said Act to refer the parties to arbitration. Sub-section (1) of Section 8 of the Arbitration Act clearly provides that upon an application under Section 8 being made, the judicial authority before which such action is brought “shall refer the parties to arbitration”, thus not leaving anything of the suit to be retained before the said Court..."
Telengana High Court
Case Title Atlantis Agritech Private Limited v. M/s Kendriya Bhandar and Another
Case Number Civil Revision Petition No. 1947 of 2026
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC(TEL) 70
The Telangana High Court has held that an award debtor cannot use execution-stage objections to sidestep the mandatory 75% deposit required under the MSMED Act.
The ruling came in a dispute between MSME supplier Atlantis Agritech Private Limited and Kendriya Bhandar, after the latter sought to keep asset-disclosure proceedings in abeyance pending its application under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure before the Executing Court.
The High Court held that such proceedings cannot be treated as independent of the Section 19 mandate requiring an award debtor to deposit 75% of the awarded amount and that a Section 47 application cannot automatically exempt the debtor from that requirement.
A Division Bench of Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice Renuka Yara allowed a civil revision petition filed by Atlantis and directed the award debtor, Kendriya Bhandar, to file a fresh affidavit disclosing the specific amounts receivable by it from ongoing and completed projects across India within three weeks.
The bench observed, “Section 47 of the CPC which allows the Judgment-Debtor to raise questions in relation to the decree can be equated to a challenge to the decree or Award as contemplated under section 19 of the MSMED Act. This is by reason of the fact that the Judgment-Debtor seeks to resist the execution of the decree under a section 47 application which is similar to an application for setting aside a decree/award made by the Facilitation Council. Therefore, proceedings under section 47 cannot said to be independent of the mandate in section 19 of the MSMED Act. Section 47 of the CPC also does not pre-suppose that the Judgment-Debtor would automatically be exempted from making the 75% deposit of the decretal amount.”
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Case Title : Nawab Raza And Others Versus Usman Khan And Another
Case Number : Misc. Appeal No. 6075 Of 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(MP) 67
On 16 September, the Madhya Pradesh High Court held that where a party challenges the very execution and validity of a partnership deed containing an arbitration clause on grounds of fraud, conspiracy and lack of informed consent, the existence of a valid arbitration agreement must be examined before the dispute can be referred to arbitration.
Justice Ramkumar Choubey dismissed a miscellaneous appeal against the 23rd District Judge, Bhopal's order restoring a civil suit after setting aside the Trial Court's direction to refer the dispute to arbitration, noting that the plaintiff was challenging the partnership deed itself, including its execution and the alleged procurement of his signature through fraud and conspiracy. The Bench observed:
“At this stage, this Court is not required to finally adjudicate upon the truthfulness of the allegations of fraud and conspiracy, nor is it required to record a final finding regarding the validity of the partnership deed. Nevertheless, for the limited purpose of determining the forum in which the foundational dispute is required to be adjudicated, the allegations contained in the plaint, the nature of the disputed document and the other attending facts and circumstances cannot be brushed aside as a mere allegation of fraud simpliciter.”
Case Title : Susajja JV Anand LLP v. Bhopal Municipal Corporation
Case Number : Arbitration Case No. 66 of 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (MP) 63
The Madhya Pradesh High Court on 3 September reiterated that a waste management contract does not become a “works contract” merely because it involves incidental civil construction, and that disputes arising from such a contract can be referred to arbitration under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Justice Deepak Khot allowed Susajja JV Anand LLP's application against Bhopal Municipal Corporation and appointed former Calcutta High Court Chief Justice Sujoy Paul as the sole arbitrator to resolve the contractual dispute between the parties. The Bench held:
“Therefore, following the view taken by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ecogreen Energy (supra) as well as by this Court in the case of M/s PKH M.P. Convention Center (supra), this Court is also of the considered opinion that the contract in question is not a work contract, as it deals dominantly for the purpose of waste management and the civil work which is incidental to the said management cannot be said to be a works contract. Therefore, the present application is allowed.”
Patna High Court
Case Title: Raj Karan Singh v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 14490 of 2024
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(PAT )25
The Patna High Court has held that Tata Motors Finance Limited could not proceed against a borrower's commercial vehicle on the basis of an ex parte arbitral award without following the prescribed enforcement process.
Justice Girijish Kumar observed that the finance company had failed to act under Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and had “taken the law in its hand," which was impermissible.
Section 36 requires an enforceable arbitral award to be enforced in the same manner as a civil court decree. The court therefore held that Tata Motors Finance should have approached the competent civil court to execute the award before proceeding against the vehicle.
Madras High Court
Madras HC Refuses Arbitrator Appointment Over Forged Clause, Says Arbitration Is 'Child Of Consent'
Case Title : Chandramouli V. v. American International School Chennai
Case Number : Arb.O.P. No.44 of 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 283
The Madras High Court on 25 September refused to appoint an arbitrator in an employment dispute between former Purchase Manager Chandramouli V. and the American International School Chennai, holding that a challenge to the genuineness of the document containing the arbitration clause goes to the root of whether an Arbitral Tribunal can be constituted.
Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari observed that arbitration, being the “child of consent,” cannot proceed where the very document containing the arbitration clause is seriously and credibly alleged to be forged or fabricated. He held:
“It is trite that arbitration is the child of consent, and consent cannot be presumed into existence merely because a document bearing an arbitration clause has been produced. Where the very parentage of that document is disputed and it is alleged to be the offspring of forgery or fabrication, the dispute sheds its purely contractual character and assumes a jurisdictional dimension.”
Madras High Court Enforces ₹13.31 Crore Award Against LIBRA Productions After Challenge Period Ends
Case Title : Madhav Media Pvt. Ltd. v. LIBRA Productions Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : EP No. 8 of 2026 in Arbitration O.P. No. 595 of 2024
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 273
The Madras High Court on 17 September allowed Madhav Media Pvt. Ltd.'s execution petition seeking the arrest of LIBRA Productions Pvt. Ltd. for enforcement of a Rs. 13.31 crore arbitral award.
Justice K. Kumaresh Babu held that once the limitation period for challenging an arbitral award expires, the award becomes final and enforceable between the parties, and a party cannot resist enforcement by subsequently questioning the arbitrator's appointment. The Bench observed:
“In such an event, the award had become final between the parties and the Decree Holder is entitled to enforce the award. Even though the Judgment Debtor claims that the Bank accounts had been frozen by the Investigating Agency and the title deeds have been deposited by him, no proof of such order being passed has been placed before this Court, nor had he taken any steps for defreezing the account.”
Madras High Court Says It Cannot “Bow Down” To NPA Threat, Upholds Attachment Against SEPC, Twarit
Case Title : SEPC Limited (formerly Shriram EPC Limited) v. GPE (India) Ltd. & Ors.
Case Number : A.No.1812 of 2026 in E.P.No.91 of 2023
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 274
On 21 September, the Madras High Court dismissed SEPC Limited's plea to recall or keep in abeyance the attachment of Rs. 154.63 crore in trade receivables during enforcement of a foreign arbitral award against SEPC and Twarit Consultancy Services Private Limited.
Justice K. Kumaresh Babu refused to lift or keep the attachment in abeyance, holding that the Court could not “bow down” to the argument that its continuation could affect the companies' business or lead to their assets being classified as non-performing assets. The Bench observed:
“The arguments made by the Judgment Debtors as well as the Consortium banks is the nature of intimidation that if the order of attachment is continued, the Judgment Debtors would fall as non-performing assets which would not be helpful for any of the parties. An attempt had been made by the first Judgment Debtor that it is a going concern and if the order of attachment continues, it would have to lose its business if the trade receivables are not re-infused into the Company for further operation.”
Case Title M/s. Shanti Telefilms vs M/s. Amma Creations
Case Number OA No. 372 of 2026 and Arb Appln.Nos.944 & 945 of 2026
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 265
The Madras High Court has disposed of three applications seeking to restrain the release and commercial exploitation of Tamil film Agni Siragugal after Amma Creations undertook not to release, distribute or otherwise commercially exploit the film without clearing the claimed dues.
Justice K. Kumaresh Babu recorded the undertaking and directed that it be strictly abided by until the disposal of the arbitral proceedings. The order was passed on September 15.
The applications were filed by Shanti Telefilms against Amma Creations under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. This provision allows a party involved in an arbitration dispute to seek interim protection from a court.
Justice Babu ruled:
“In view of the statement that had been made by the respondent by way of an affidavit, recording the affidavit, all these applications stand disposed of and it is made clear that the said undertaking shall be strictly abided by the respondent till the disposal of the arbitral proceedings.”
Case Title M/s Sundaram Finance Limited v. A. Arun Kumar & Anr.; M/s Sundaram Finance Limited v. S. Maheswari & Anr.
Case Number CRP Nos. 4649 & 4436 of 2026
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 263
The Madras High Court on 31 August held that an Executing Court cannot suo motu refuse to enforce an arbitral award on the ground that the arbitrator was unilaterally appointed when the award-debtors have neither challenged the award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 nor contested its execution.
Justice P.B. Balaji allowed two civil revision petitions filed by Sundaram Finance Limited against the award-debtors, set aside the orders refusing execution and directed the Executing Courts to enforce the arbitral awards “as it stands”. The Bench observed:
“Admittedly, in the present cases, the award sufferers have neither challenged the awards in a manner known to law, by filing a Section 34 application under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, nor even come forward to contest the execution petitions as well. In the absence of any such challenge on the side of the award sufferers, the Executing Court cannot suo motu exercise a right to dismiss the execution petitions, on finding that the appointment of the Arbitrator was unilateral.”
Madras High Court Says Time Extension Doesn't Waive Liquidated Damages If Right Is Reserved
Case Title : Ansaldo Energia S.P.A. & Anr. v. M/s Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd.
Case Number : OSA No. 140 of 2022 and A. No. 3696 of 2023 in OP No. 709 of 2016
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 261
The Madras High Court has refused to interfere with an arbitral award in a dispute over delays in the expansion of Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited's First Thermal Power Station by two 210 MW units.
It held that NLC had not waived its right to claim liquidated damages by granting extensions of time, as each extension expressly reserved that right.
A bench of Justice P. Velmurugan and Justice K. Govindarajan Thilakavadi observed:
“Where the promisee permits further performance and extends the period, the question whether the right to claim compensation has been waived has to be determined from the conduct and communications between the parties. In the present case, the extensions granted by the Respondent were not unconditional extensions.”
Case Title : Eros Technologies Digital FZE v. Ayngaran International Media Private Limited & Ors.
Case Number : OA No. 454 of 2026 and A No. 2680 of 2026 in C.S. (Comm. Div.) No. 140 of 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 253
The Madras High Court has ruled that a copyright infringement dispute can be resolved through arbitration when the parties have agreed to that mode of dispute resolution, holding that the civil remedy available under the Copyright Act does not prevent arbitration.
Justice K. Kumaresh Babu ruled,
“It is true that Section 55 provides for a civil remedy in an infringement of a copyright. There can be no doubt that the civil remedy can also be by a process of arbitration, as arbitration is in the form of alternative dispute resolution between the parties, and if agreed between them...”
The ruling came in a dispute over rights in certain cinematograph films claimed by Eros Technologies Digital FZE through a chain of assignments.
Sikkim High Court
Case Title State of Sikkim v. Nimmi Oberoi
Case Number CRP. No. 6 of 2026
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC (SI) 2
The Sikkim High Court has held that a judge who earlier decided an application for interim protection in an arbitration dispute does not have to automatically recuse from hearing a subsequent challenge to the arbitral award arising from the same arbitration.
Justice Bhaskar Raj Pradhan observed that automatic recusal would not be required unless the State of Sikkim could demonstrate a real and reasonable apprehension of bias. Allowing such a recusal, according to the court, would be akin to allowing parties to choose their judges.
"I am also of the considered view that the learned Judge who decided the application under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act does not have to automatically recuse from subsequently hearing the appeal under section 34 arising from the same arbitration unless the State of Sikkim is able to demonstrate a real and reasonable apprehension of bias. If an application for recusal is permitted on the mere asking on the ground that the learned Judge had decided one way or the other earlier on an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act, it would lead to the party choosing their Judge which would not be proper for administration of justice"
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case Title : Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. v. Danieli and C Officine Meccaniche S.p.A. & Ors.
Case Number : I.C.O.M.A.O.A. No. 1 of 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(APH) 53
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that the courts at Visakhapatnam have jurisdiction to hear Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd.'s challenge to an arbitral award, despite the arbitral tribunal later recording New Delhi as the seat of arbitration.
Justice Balaji Medamalli observed that the parties had agreed to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Visakhapatnam courts while separately providing for different venues for conducting the arbitration.
“In the instant case, Article 18 of the agreement clearly stipulates that the Courts at Visakhapatnam shall have exclusive jurisdiction, which would exclude the parties from contending that the seat of arbitration is at somewhere else. The agreement, after excluding all other Courts except the Courts at Visakhapatnam, stated that the venue may be at a different place,” the court held.
Punjab & Haryana High Court
Employee's Death During Appeal Does Not Nullify Disciplinary Punishment: Punjab & Haryana High Court
Case Title Sukhjinder Singh v. Punjab State Coop. Supply & Marketing Fed. Ltd. & Anr
Case Number CWP-7516-2013 (O&M)
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC(PNH) 52
The Punjab & Haryana High Court on 2 September held that an employee's death during the pendency of a departmental appeal does not automatically nullify a disciplinary punishment imposed during his lifetime.
Justice Sandeep Moudgil dismissed a writ petition filed by Sukhjinder Singh, son of former Punjab State Cooperative Supply & Marketing Federation Ltd. (Markfed) Branch Officer M.S. Cheema, challenging the reduction of his father's pay by two stages for calculating retiral dues over negligence relating to a shortage of paddy stocks worth about Rs. 26 lakh. The Bench held:
“The principle emerging from the aforesaid decision is that where the disciplinary enquiry has already culminated and a punishment has been imposed during the lifetime of the employee, the subsequent death of the employee during pendency of an appeal does not automatically nullify the punishment already imposed.”
Chhattisgarh High Court
Case Title State of Chhattisgarh & Anr. v. ECI-Keystone (JV)
Case Number WP227 No. 768 of 2026
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC(CHH) 26
The Chhattisgarh High Court has recently held that government officers cannot be made personally liable for an unpaid arbitral award merely because they are responsible for processing or arranging payment on behalf of their department.
Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal observed, “The liability created by the award cannot, in execution, be converted into a personal monetary liability of an officer merely because such officer happens to be responsible for processing or arranging payment on behalf of the department.”
"If the award-debtor is a State department or authority, the Executing Court may certainly require the competent authority to disclose the position regarding assets, funds, sanctions or the steps taken for satisfaction of the award and may adopt the modes of execution permissible under Order XXI CPC; however, it cannot, merely for securing payment of a money award, impose upon individual officers a liability which does not flow from the award or from any adjudication in which they were personally liable", It added.
Gujarat High Court
Case Title : Gujarat Housing Board v. M/s. Cube Construction Engineering Limited
Case Number : R/First Appeal No. 4171 of 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (GUJ) 136
The Gujarat High Court on 18 September held that courts can impose costs to deter casual challenges to arbitral awards, observing that frivolous applications under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 burden courts with unnecessary litigation.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice D.N. Ray dismissed the Gujarat Housing Board's challenge to a Rs. 3.97 crore arbitral award in favour of Cube Construction Engineering Ltd. and imposed Rs. 3 lakh costs on the Board. The judges observed:
“The casual filing of applications under Sections 34 and 37 of the Act, 1996 burdening the Courts with unnecessary and frivolous litigation, needs to be curbed forthwith. The only deterrent which comes in our mind is imposition of costs by Courts under Section 34 as well as in 37 proceedings, at par with the arbitration costs which is imposed upon the losing party in accordance with the provisions of 31A of Act, 1996.”
Case Title National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Polymech Plast Machines Ltd.
Case Number R/First Appeal No. 3873 of 2014 with R/Cross Objection No. 15 of 2015
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC (GUJ) 130
The Gujarat High Court set aside majority awards granting Rs. 40.53 lakh to Polymech Plast Machines Limited in its insurance dispute with National Insurance Company Limited and upheld the minority award granting Rs. 4.25 lakh.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice D.N. Ray held that an arbitral award is vitiated by perversity where arbitrators rely on an office note as the governing insurance policy while excluding the policy containing the arbitration clause. The judges observed:
“To our mind, the greatest perversity which is apparent in the award in question is that the policy sought to be excluded by the learned Arbitrator contains the arbitration clause whereas, the policy sought to be relied upon by the said learned Arbitrators do not contain any arbitration clause. For this reason alone, the reliance upon the so-called policy to the exclusion of Fire Policy -'C' vitiate the awards.”
Himachal Pradesh High Court
Case Title SRM Constructions Vs. UOI
Case Number Ex. Pet No.19 of 2025
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC(HP) 32
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that an execution petition filed in 2025 to enforce a 2012 arbitral award was within limitation.
It held that the period during which the award was deemed to be automatically stayed under the law then prevailing had to be excluded while calculating limitation.
Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua observed, “In the instant case, objections under Section 34 of the Act were preferred by the respondent-Judgment Debtor within the prescribed limitation period. Therefore, even though no separate application had been moved by the judgment debtor seeking stay of the arbitral award impugned therein, yet by virtue of the law laid down in the aforesaid decisions, there was deemed construction of automatic stay of award on the filing of petition under Section 34 of the Act. Such construction suspended the period of limitation from the date of the award i.e. 20.03.2012.”