Arbitration Cases Weekly Digest [26th January - 1st February, 2026]
Shivani PS
2 Feb 2026 9:17 AM IST
![Arbitration Cases Weekly Digest [26th January - 1st February, 2026]](https://www.livelawbiz.com/h-upload/2026/01/29/750x450_652647-weekly-digest-arbitration-llbiz.webp "Arbitration Cases Weekly Digest [26th January - 1st February, 2026]")
Nominal Index
Jan De Nul Dredging India Pvt. Ltd. v. Tuticorin Port Trust, 2026 LLBiz SC 15
Jagdeep Chowgule v. Sheela Chowgule and Ors, 2026 LLBiz SC 30
M/s Angel One Limited v. S.X.J. Vasan, 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 30
M/s Ramacivil India Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. Central Public Works Department, 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 77
Arun Mehrotra Versus Kishan Lal, 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 85 To Rea
Vedanta Limited v. Gujarat State Petroleum Corporation Ltd., 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 88
IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Unison Hotels Pvt. Ltd., 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 101
NHPC Limited v. Chairman-Cum-Managing Director, M/S Patel-L&T Consortium-Parbati HE Project Stage-III, 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 90
IPEX Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. Krishna Constructions & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 103
National Highways Authority of India v. Kochi Aroor Tollways Pvt Ltd, 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 100
Pali Hills Breweries Private Limited v. Carlsberg India Private Limited, 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 68
The Chief Engineer and Chief Administrator, Command Area Development Authority & Ors. v. Hule Constructions Private Limited & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 53
Real Infrastructure Company through its Partner Keshavji Damji Minat v. Tilak Nagar Mahalaxmi Co-Operative Housing Society Limited and Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 43
Ningbo Aux Imp & Exp Co. Ltd. v. Amstrad Consumer India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 50
M/S Sowil Limited v. Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction) Bhusawal, 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 51
Messe Frankfurt Trade Fairs India Pvt. Ltd. v. Netlink Solutions India Limited & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 40
Kanti Builders Pvt. Ltd. v. Witty Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 49
Telford Marine DMCC v. Bhambhani Shipping Limited and Another, 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 42
Genebio Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. v. Paradigm Enterprises & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC (ALL) 10
The Visakhapatnam Port Authority v. M/s Vishwanadh Avenues (India) Private Limited, 2026 LLBiz HC (APH) 10
Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. M/S R Haranadha Reddy, 2026 LLBiz HC (MP) 9
Supreme Court
Case Title : Jan De Nul Dredging India Pvt. Ltd. v. Tuticorin Port Trust
Case Number : Civil Appeal No. 98 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz SC 15
The Supreme Court, recently, set aside a Madras High Court order that had deleted compensation awarded to a dredging contractor and reiterated that appellate courts cannot interfere with arbitral awards merely because they prefer a different interpretation of the contract. A Bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Pankaj Mithal held that courts hearing appeals in arbitration matters have a narrow and limited role.
Once an arbitral award has been examined and found free from serious flaws, an appellate court cannot re-enter the dispute or reassess the merits. “If an award is not liable to be disturbed under Section 34 of the Act, the same could not have been interfered with in exercise of powers under Section 37 of the Act,” the court held.
Emphasising why restraint is central to arbitration, the top court added, “In the event, the courts are allowed to step in at every stage and the arbitral awards are subjected to challenge before the courts in hierarchy before court of first instance, through regular appeals and finally by means of SLP/Civil Appeal before the Supreme Court, it would obviate/frustrate and defeat the very purpose of the Act.”
Case Title : Jagdeep Chowgule v. Sheela Chowgule and Ors
Case Number : SLP(C) Nos. 10944-10945 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz SC 30 T
The Supreme Court has held that an application seeking extension of time for an arbitral tribunal under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act lies before the civil court, even in cases where the High Court has appointed the arbitrator. The court clarified that the High Court's role ends with the appointment of the arbitrator and does not continue during the arbitration. A Bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice R. Mahadevan said the jurisdiction exercised by a High Court under Section 11 is limited in scope and comes to an end once the arbitral tribunal is constituted.
Relying on its own ruling in Kamal Gupta v. L.R. Builder (2025), the court held, "Exercise of jurisdiction under Section 11 stands exhausted upon the constitution of the arbitral tribunal. There is no residual supervisory or controlling power left with the High Court or the Supreme Court over the arbitral proceedings after appointment is made. To read Section 11 as conferring such enduring control would be to conflate appointment with supervision, a conflation which the Act as well as the precedents on the subject prohibit,”
High Courts
Madras High Court
Case Title : M/s Angel One Limited v. S.X.J. Vasan
Case Number : Arb.O.P.(Com.Div.) No.417 of 2023
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 30
The Madras High Court has upheld an arbitral award directing Angel One Limited to pay Rs 48.77 lakh with interest to its client, holding that the squaring off of shares by the broker was illegal. The court found no ground to interfere with the award under the limited scope of a challenge to an arbitral decision. Justice N. Anand Venkatesh said the sole arbitrator's conclusion was based on a proper appreciation of evidence. The court made clear that it could not re-examine the merits merely because another view was possible.
"This finding of the sole Arbitrator to the effect that the squaring off done by the petitioner on 21.1.2016 was illegal is certainly a possible view on appreciation of evidence. Just because there is a possibility of taking a different view based on the evidence available on record, that cannot be a ground to interfere with the finding and the law on this issue is too well settled.", it said.
Delhi High Court
Case Title : M/s Ramacivil India Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. Central Public Works Department
Case Number : O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 447/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 77
The Delhi High Court recently allowed IIM Jammu to be impleaded in arbitration-related proceedings over the construction of its permanent campus at Jagti, despite the institute not being a signatory to the arbitration agreement. The order, pronounced by Joint Registrar Deepak Dabas, held that the institute is a necessary party because it is the ultimate beneficiary of the premises and of all acts or omissions of the contractor.
He held, "I am of the considered view that IIM Jammu is entitled of being impleaded as a party in the present matter as the premises in question have been constructed for applicant/IIM Jammu. IIM Jammu is beneficiary of the premises in question and all the payment for construction of premises has been made/is to be made by IIM Jammu. IIM Jammu is the ultimate beneficiary/sufferer of all the acts/omissions of petitioner,".
Mere Conduct Of Arbitration Under DIAC, By Itself, Doesn't Make Delhi The Seat: Delhi High Court
Case Title : Arun Mehrotra Versus Kishan Lal
Case Number : FAO(COMM.) 123/2023
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 85
The Delhi High Court on Tuesday set aside a district court order that refused to hear a challenge to an arbitral award. It held that arbitration conducted under the aegis of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre does not, by itself, make Delhi the seat of arbitration. The Court said that where no seat is expressly designated, courts where a part of the cause of action arises can exercise jurisdiction. Once a competent court is approached first, Section 42 requires that all further court proceedings arising from the same arbitration be heard by that court alone.
A Division Bench of Justice Anil Kshetrapal and Justice Amit Mahajan said courts often confuse the seat of arbitration with the venue of hearings. The Bench said the seat is the juridical centre of the arbitral proceedings. It determines which court exercises supervisory jurisdiction. The venue, by contrast, is only the place where hearings are held for convenience. “The two concepts are distinct and cannot be used interchangeably,” the Court observed. It added that merely because arbitral proceedings are conducted at a particular place does not, by itself, confer exclusive jurisdiction on courts there.
Case Title : Vedanta Limited v. Gujarat State Petroleum Corporation Ltd.
Case Number : I.A. 25230/2025 & I.A. 25279/2025 in ARB.P. 853/2023
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 88
The Delhi High Court has rejected Gujarat State Petroleum Corporation Ltd.'s claim that it lacked jurisdiction to appoint an arbitrator in its dispute with Vedanta Limited, after GSPC argued that a foreign joint venture partner had been deliberately left out of the proceedings. Justice Subramonium Prasad held that the jurisdictional objection, which was raised through a recall application, could not be examined at this stage because the arbitral tribunal is still considering whether Vedanta's joint venture partners, including Cairn Energy Hydrocarbons Limited and ONGC, are necessary parties to the arbitration.
It held that “In case the learned Arbitral Tribunal rejects the said Application, then the entire issue that is now sought to be raised before this Court becomes redundant. Therefore, the present Application, at this juncture, seems to be premature.”
“Without the consent of the Respondent, this Court will not have the jurisdiction to alter Paragraph No.33 of the Judgment dated 28.07.2025. The Respondent is correct in stating that it cannot be said that there is any error apparent on the face of the record in the Judgment dated 28.07.2025,” Justice Prasad held.
Case Title : IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Unison Hotels Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : O.M.P. (COMM) 197/2023
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 101
The Delhi High Court on Friday set aside an arbitral award arising out of an insurance dispute between IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Limited and Unison Hotels Private Limited, holding that the tribunal's two-year delay in pronouncing the award after reserving it had vitiated its findings. The case was heard by a Single Judge Bench of Justice Avneesh Jhingan. The court reiterated that the object of arbitration is speedy dispute resolution. It also observed that “it is trite law that the justice should not only be done but should also appear to have been done.”
“Inordinate delay jolts the confidence of the parties as to whether the submissions were effectively weighed”, the court observed. Holding that the prolonged delay had impacted the tribunal's consideration of the jurisdictional objection and rendered the award patently illegal and unsustainable, the High Court allowed the petition and set aside the arbitral award dated March 6, 2023.
Delhi High Court Allows NHPC To Pursue Delayed Challenge To Parbati Project Arbitral Award
Case Title : NHPC Limited v. Chairman-Cum-Managing Director, M/S Patel-L&T Consortium-Parbati HE Project Stage-III
Case Number : I.A. 1707/2020 & I.A. 7844/2022 IN O.M.P. (COMM) 338/2020
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 90
The Delhi High Court has allowed NHPC Limited to pursue a delayed challenge to an arbitral award arising from works executed for the Parbati Hydroelectric Project, after accepting its explanation for the time spent litigating before courts later found to lack territorial jurisdiction. Justice Subramonium Prasad noted that NHPC approached the Delhi High Court within 30 days of the Supreme Court settling the jurisdiction question.
The court also took into account that NHPC first had to obtain the return of its papers from the Commercial Court at Gurugram and then refile them in the format required in Delhi. “In view of these facts, it cannot be said that the Petitioner was not active in pursuing the matter,” the court said. After the Supreme Court's ruling, NHPC refiled its petition before the Delhi High Court and sought exclusion of the time spent before the Faridabad and Gurugram courts. Accepting that NHPC had pursued the proceedings diligently and in good faith, the High Court allowed the application, permitting the challenge to proceed.
Delhi High Court Moves Interim Relief Plea From Court To Arbitration Forum After Parties Consent
Case Title : IPEX Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. Krishna Constructions & Ors.
Case Number : O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 492/2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 103
The Delhi High Court has moved a plea for interim relief out of the courtroom and into arbitration after the parties agreed that their dispute should be resolved through arbitration. Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar was hearing a petition arising from a Memorandum of Understanding dated 3 November 2025 between IPEX Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and Krishna Constructions, in which interim protection was sought.
Upon the parties' consent, the Court referred the dispute to arbitration and appointed Senior Advocate Vibha Mahajan Seth, empanelled with the Delhi International Arbitration Centre, as the sole arbitrator. The arbitration will be conducted under the center's rules.
Case Title : National Highways Authority of India v. Kochi Aroor Tollways Pvt Ltd
Case Number : O.M.P. (COMM) 170/2019
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 100
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a challenge by the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) against an arbitral award granted to Kochi Aroor Tollways Private Limited (KATPL), upholding a compensation amount of approximately ₹12.18 crores. The award addressed losses KATPL sustained on the Edapally–Vyttila–Aroor road stretch in Kerala, specifically due to incorrectly fixed toll rates, delays in declaring the Commercial Operation Date, and the costs associated with issuing free monthly passes to locals.
The Court observed that the "Arbitral Tribunal has correctly come to the conclusion that the user fee rates notified by NHAI were not in accordance with the provisions of the Concession Agreement read with 2008 Rules and the Amendment Rules of 2011. Hence, Arbitral Tribunal worked out the user fee rates in accordance with the Concession Agreement. The finding of the Arbitral Tribunal is based on the contractual framework between the parties read with the relevant Rules and does not disclose any perversity or patent illegality".
Arbitral Tribunal Is A 'Creature of Contract': Delhi High Court Upholds ₹25 Lakh Award To Carlsberg
Case Title : Pali Hills Breweries Private Limited v. Carlsberg India Private Limited
Case Number : O.M.P. (COMM) 595/2020, I.A. 12441/2020, I.A. 12442/2020, I.A. 12443/2020, I.A. 1083/2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 68
The Delhi High Court has upheld an arbitral award directing Pali Hills Breweries Pvt. Ltd. to pay Rs 25 lakh to Carlsberg India Private Limited under a brewing contract, while partly allowing the company's challenge by setting aside the arbitrator's rejection of its storage-rent claim. The court held that the amount was a genuine estimate of loss agreed to by the parties. Justice Jasmeet Singh said the High Court could not step in to re-decide the dispute or re-examine the evidence. He said the court's role is limited and it cannot sit as an appeal court over an arbitral tribunal. The court noted that the arbitral tribunal gets its authority from the contract signed by the parties and must decide the dispute within the limits of that contract.
“The Tribunal is a creature of contract and is bound by the circumscribing limits of the terms of the Contract. It is upon the Tribunal to interpret the terms of the contract. The Tribunal, in the present case, has interpreted the amount of Rs. 25 lakhs as reasonable compensation,” the court said.
Bombay High Court
Bombay High Court Upholds ₹10.54 Crore Arbitration Award Against CADA In Beed Irrigation Project
Case Title : The Chief Engineer and Chief Administrator, Command Area Development Authority & Ors. v. Hule Constructions Private Limited & Ors.
Case Number : Commercial Arbitration Appeal No. 2 of 2022 with Civil Application No. 10992 of 2022 in CARBA/2/2022
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 53
The Bombay High Court has recently upheld a Rs. 10.54 crore arbitral award arising from delays in the repair and renovation of 19 minor irrigation tanks in Beed district, holding the Command Area Development Authority responsible for stalling the project. A Division Bench of Justices Arun R. Pedneker and Vaishali Patil-Jadhav dismissed an appeal filed by senior officials of the authority and affirmed the Commercial Court's refusal to set aside the award. The bench agreed with the arbitrator that the department could not rely on contractual clauses barring compensation after being found in breach of its own obligations.
"Notwithstanding the clauses in the contract, when the party has failed to standby it's part of the contract, it is not available for the defaulting party to insist upon implementation of the clauses of the contract providing for no claim for idling of machinery or escalation of price. The argument raised is, thus, rejected.”, it said.
Individual Members Can't Stall Housing Society Redevelopment: Bombay High Court Reaffirms
Case Title : Real Infrastructure Company through its Partner Keshavji Damji Minat V/S Tilak Nagar Mahalaxmi Co-Operative Housing Society Limited and Ors.
Case Number : ARBITRATION PETITION (L) NO.40791 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 43
The Bombay High Court has held that an individual member of a cooperative housing society cannot refuse to vacate her flat and delay redevelopment after the society has approved the project and executed a development agreement. Justice Sandeep V. Marne reiterated members are bound by the development agreement signed by the society. "The individual members of the Co-operative Society are bound by covenants in the Development Agreement executed by the Society with the Developer and individual rights of a member are subservient to the obligations of the Society under the Development Agreement.", it said
Case Title : Ningbo Aux Imp & Exp Co. Ltd. v. Amstrad Consumer India Pvt. Ltd. (formerly known as OVOT Pvt. Ltd.) & Anr.
Case Number : Commercial Arbitration Petition No. 983 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 50
The Bombay High Court has dismissed a petition filed by Ningbo Aux Imp & Exp Co. Ltd. seeking interim relief against Vijay Sales, holding that such relief cannot be granted once a foreign arbitral award has already been found unenforceable against that party. Justice Sandeep V. Marne noted that the foreign arbitral award in the case was passed only against Amstrad Consumer India Pvt. Ltd. Vijay Sales was not a party to the arbitration and had already been deleted from the award enforcement proceedings by an earlier court order that had attained finality.
“Once it is held in enforcement proceedings that there is no underlying liability against a third-party, Section 9 route cannot be adopted to fasten the very same liability against that party in an indirect manner. In the present case, it is held by the enforcement court that Vijay Sales has no liability to pay to the Petitioner under the award and enforcement proceedings are dismissed against it,” the court observed.
Arbitration Cannot Be Invoked Beyond Contractually Agreed Monetary Limits: Bombay High Court
Case Title : M/S. Sowil Limited v. Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction) Bhusawal
Case Number : COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION APPLICATION NO. 688 OF 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 51
The Bombay High Court has held that where parties have contractually agreed to restrict arbitration only to disputes up to a specified percentage of the contract value, courts cannot compel arbitration for claims exceeding that agreed limit. Justice Sandeep V. Marne emphasised that arbitration is founded on party autonomy, under which parties are free to determine not only whether disputes will be arbitrated but also which categories or value of disputes will be subject to arbitration.
Emphasising this principle, the Court observed, “Once arbitration agreement is arrived at, it does not mean that every dispute has to be resolved only by arbitration. It is for parties to decide whether all or selective disputes are to be resolved by arbitration. Parties here have clearly intended that claims of only particular value would be adjudicated through arbitration while claims exceeding the agreed value would be resolved through other remedies. It is for the parties to agree as to whether the disputes would be resolved through arbitration or not and the Court cannot force the parties to have the disputes resolved through the mechanism of private arbitration.”
Bombay High Court Cautions Against Injunctions On Third Parties In Arbitration Cases
Case Title : Messse Frankfurt Trade Fairs India Pvt. Ltd. v. Netlink Solutions India Limited & Ors.
Case Number : COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION PETITION (L) NO. 40115 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 40
The Bombay High Court has dismissed a plea seeking interim relief pending arbitration by Messe Frankfurt Trade Fairs India Pvt. Ltd, he Indian arm of German exhibition organiser Messe Frankfurt, seeking interim relief to stop two trade exhibitions in Mumbai, reiterating that courts must be cautious while granting orders directly against third parties under the arbitration law. Justice Sandeep V Marne said that while there is no absolute bar on granting interim relief against non-signatories, such power cannot be stretched in every case.
Though there may not be complete prohibition in law to make an order directly against a third party under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act, such power needs to be exercised sparingly. No case is made out by the Petitioner for exercise of such power against Respondent No. 6.", the court said.
Bombay High Court Says Arbitrator Right To Decide Claim on Work Performed, Not Alleged Admission
Case Title : Kanti Builders Pvt. Ltd. v. Witty Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : Commercial Arbitration Petition (L) No. 33334 of 2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 49
The Bombay High Court has refused to interfere with an arbitral award after finding that the contractor itself chose to press a claim based on the value of work carried out, and could not later ask the court to enforce a higher amount on the basis of an alleged admission of liability. Dismissing a petition filed by Kanti Builders Pvt Ltd, the Court said the arbitral tribunal was justified in deciding the dispute on evidence of work executed rather than on letters or a dishonoured cheque relied upon later.
Justice Sandeep V. Marne upheld the approach of the sole arbitrator, noting that the tribunal had undertaken a detailed factual exercise to assess what was actually payable under the construction contract. The Court observed that “the Tribunal rightly not got swayed by alleged admissions contained in the letter dated 12 August 2021 and undated letter.” It said the arbitrator had examined the exact liability under the contract instead of mechanically accepting claimed figures.
Interim Relief Can't Undo Completed Sale Or Replace Enforcement In Arbitration: Bombay High Court
Case Title : Telford Marine Dmcc Versus Bhambhani Shipping Limited And Another
Case Number : COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 727 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 42
The Bombay High Court has dismissed a plea seeking to stop the sale of a vessel and secure an arbitral award, holding that once a sale is completed, the court cannot restrain the transaction or use interim relief to indirectly enforce an award. Justice Sandeep V. Marne said interim protection under the arbitration law is meant to prevent imminent dissipation of assets. It cannot be used to undo a concluded transaction or as a substitute for enforcement proceedings.
“The sale of the Ship has taken place. Whether it is a valid transfer within the meaning of Section 42 of the Merchants Shipping Act is not required to be adjudicated in the present petition,” the court said. “Section 9 remedy would ordinarily be available only when it is demonstrated that the award creditor is in the process of seeking enforcement of the award but there is imminent danger of dissipation of the assets,” It added.
Allahabad High Court
Case Title : Genebio Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. through Director, Arun Kumar Srivastava Versus Paradigm Enterprises through Director Ritika Pandey and others
Case Number : Matters227 No. - 3886 of 2024
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (ALL) 10
The Allahabad High Court has recently reiterated that a challenge to an arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act does not become not maintainable merely because it is not accompanied by a separate application seeking condonation of delay. The court said what matters is whether the party has, in the petition itself, set out reasons for the delay or sought the benefit of limitation law, and whether the court has applied its mind to those pleadings.
Justice Jaspreet Singh, however, relying on earlier precedents, made it clear that courts cannot mechanically excuse delay simply because a petition is filed within the additional 30-day window allowed under the law. “It is not merely because the application under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 was not accompanied by a separate application seeking condonation of delay, per se would make the application not maintainable without considering as to whether in the pleading any ground was set out for condonation of delay or for grant of benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act or any prayer was made to the aforesaid effect or not,” the court said.
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Status Quo Ante Means Restoration, Can't Be Ordered Lightly: Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case Title : The Visakhapatnam Port Authority Vs. M/s. Vishwanadh Avenues (India) Private Limited, rep. by its Managing Director, Boddeti Narendra Kumar.
Case Number : COMCA Nos.29 & 30 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (APH) 10
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has recently set aside an ad interim order passed during arbitration proceedings that directed restoration of possession of leased premises, holding that such relief amounts to a mandatory injunction and cannot be granted lightly. A Division Bench of Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Maheswara Rao Kuncheam said courts must record clear and justifiable reasons before directing restoration of an earlier state of affairs.
"Such orders of status quo ante‟ are not to be passed lightly and certainly not for no reasons assigned in the order. The order must contain justifiable reasons for an ad-interim order in the nature of mandatory injunction", it said.
The court rejected attempts to defend the order in question by supplying reasons during the appeal, including arguments relating to the legality of taking possession. An order, it said, must stand or fall on the reasons recorded in it and cannot be supplemented later. The bench said it would not get into disputed questions of fact, including whether the lease terms were breached or whether possession was taken lawfully, as those issues require factual examination and are already pending before the Commercial Court. Since the impugned order recorded no reasons and did not even contain a prima facie finding to justify restoration, the High Court set aside the ad interim order.
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Case Title : Steel Authority Of India Ltd. v. M/S R Haranadha Reddy
Case Number : ARBITRATION APPEAL No. 14 of 2009
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (MP) 9
The Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur has set aside a district court order that rejected SAIL's objections to a Rs 1.54-crore arbitration award, with its reasoning confined to just two paragraphs. The High Court said such a dismissal, without dealing with the objections raised, cannot be sustained. Justice Vivek Jain, while ordering a fresh decision through a reasoned order observed, “Such a non-speaking order passed in course of proceedings under Section 34 cannot be upheld by this Court, because there is no reasonable consideration of the grounds raised by the appellant in the application under section 34.” the court said.
“Though there may not be requirement of having a discussion like a judgment in civil suit, but each and every ground raised must have had some consideration, in at least a couple of lines to show the reasoning of the Court that how the ground raised does not fall within the purview of the grounds as enumerated in Section 34(2) of the Act of 1996,” the court observed.