Arbitration Cases Weekly Round-Up: 19th January-25th January 2026
Shivani PS
26 Jan 2026 1:26 PM IST
Nominal Index
1. Prakash Atlanta (JV) vs National Highways Authority of India, 2026 LLBiz SC 17
2. Jan De Nul Dredging India Pvt. Ltd. v. Tuticorin Port Trust, 2026 LLBiz SC 15
3. E-City Real Estates Pvt Ltd & Anr. vs IMAX Corporation & Ors., 2026 LLBiz SC 22
4. Steel Authority Of India Ltd. v. M/S R Haranadha Reddy, 2026 LLBiz HC (MP) 9
5. Maverick Developer And Colonizers Pvt. Ltd. v. Project Officer, 2026 LLBiz HC (MP) 8
6. Ashutosh Infra Pvt. Ltd. v. Pebble Downtown India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 55
7. Prasar Bharati v. Stracon India Ltd & Anr.; Stracon India Ltd v. Prasar Bharati, 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 75
8. Walmark Holdings Limited v. Fortis Healthcare Limited, 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 64
9. Mr. Mohd. Khalid v. M/S Jai Mata Di Packaging Through Its Partners & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 60
10. Jay Gee Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. Indraprastha Power Generation Co. Ltd., 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 50
11. Delhi Jal Board v. M/S Mohini Electricals Ltd., 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 46
12. Natasha Oberoi v. Rajaraman Shankar & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 47
13. State of Maharashtra v. M/s Patwardhan Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 35
14. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. vs. Om Constraction on behalf of Om Constraction Nice Projects Limited JV, 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 36
15. Messe Frankfurt Trade Fairs India Pvt. Ltd. v. Netlink Solutions India Limited & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 40
16. Aditya Birla Housing Finance Ltd v. Axis Bank Ltd & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 37
17. RPN Engineers Chennai Pvt. Ltd. v. The General Manager, Integral Coach Factory & Anr., 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 27
18. M/s. Muthu Construction v. Union of India, 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 24
19. Andaman and Nicobar Islands Integrated Corporation Ltd. v. M/s Heaven on Ocean Tourism Pvt. Ltd., 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 18
20. Zillion Infraprojects Private Limited v. Bridge And Roof Company India Limited, 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 15
21. C & E Limited and Others v. Gopal Das Bagri and Others, 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 27
22.Smt. Jaya Kar v. Union of India & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 21
23. The Board Of Major Port Authority For The Syama Prasad Mookerjee Port, Kolkata v. Marinecraft Engineers Private Limited, 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 25
24. Raghavendra & Anr. v. Vijaykumar, 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 9
25. Athira K.S. v. Kotak Mahindra Prime Ltd. & Anr., 2026 LLBiz HC (KER) 8
Supreme Court
Courts Cannot Substitute Plausible Arbitral View Merely Because Another Is Possible: Supreme Court
Case Title: Prakash Atlanta (JV) v. National Highways Authority of India
Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 4513 of 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz SC 17
The Supreme Court has reiterated that courts should exercise minimal interference with arbitral awards and cannot substitute an arbitral tribunal's interpretation of a contract merely because another view is possible. The court also held that although the Building and Other Construction Workers Act, 1996 (BOCW Act) and the Welfare Cess Act were brought into force in the mid-1990s, they could not be given effect to for several years due to the failure of governments to constitute statutory Welfare Boards and put the implementation machinery in place.
A bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kumar and Alok Aradhe made these observations on January 20 while deciding a batch of appeals arising from arbitral awards passed in disputes between contractors and the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI).
The court said, “If an arbitral tribunal's view is found to be a possible and plausible one, it cannot be substituted merely because an alternate view is possible. Construction and interpretation of a contract and its terms is a matter for the arbitral tribunal to determine. Unless the same is found to be one that no fair-minded or reasonable person would arrive at, it cannot be interfered with.”
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, 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.”
Supreme Court Orders Status Quo, Asset Disclosure In IMAX–E-City Arbitration Dispute
Case Title : E-City Real Estates Pvt Ltd & Anr. v. IMAX Corporation & Ors.
Case Number : Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.2537/2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz SC 22
The Supreme Court on Friday ordered the E-City group to maintain status quo over all its assets and disclose details of its movable and immovable properties while taking up a fresh challenge to the Bombay High Court's decision that revived enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in favour of IMAX Corporation. A bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and K V Viswanathan issued notice on a special leave petition filed by E-City Real Estates Pvt. Ltd. and another group entity, challenging the Bombay High Court's December 30, 2025 decision allowing enforcement of the arbitral awards.
Before the Supreme Court on Friday, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for IMAX, stated that since the matter was now pending before the apex court, the company would not proceed with the execution of the arbitral awards for the time being. Recording the statement, the bench granted liberty to both sides to file their submissions.
HIGH COURTS
MP 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 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.
Case Title : Maverick Developer And Colonizers Pvt. Ltd. v. Project Officer
Case Number : ARBITRATION CASE No. 112 of 2019
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (MP) 8
The Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur has held that disputes arising out of works contracts with municipal corporations covered by the MP Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 cannot be taken to arbitration under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and must instead be decided by the state's statutory arbitration tribunal. Justice Vivek Jain held that although municipalities are described in the Constitution as institutions of local self-government, this does not place them beyond the financial and supervisory control of the State Government. Rejecting the contractor's argument, the court observed,
“The self-government as prescribed in Article 243-P(e) has to be understood in the manner of self-government of the Municipal area or the local area for which the Municipality is functioning. It cannot be construed to be a self-government institution vis-à-vis the State Government and to bring it out of financial and supervisory control of the State Government.”
Delhi High Court
'Full and Final' Settlement Does Not Bar Arbitration On Fresh Disputes: Delhi High Court Reiterates
Case Title : Ashutosh Infra Pvt. Ltd. v. Pebble Downtown India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Case Number : ARB.P. 1294/2023; O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 152/2023
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 55
The Delhi High Court has reiterated that a “full and final” settlement does not automatically bar arbitration if fresh disputes arise from the settlement's implementation and the parties have agreed to arbitrate such disputes. A single-judge bench of Justice Jyoti Singh ruled that an arbitration clause incorporated in a settlement agreement and reflected in a consent award constitutes a valid arbitration agreement under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The court clarified that “execution of a full and final settlement may not preclude a party from taking recourse to arbitration if a dispute arises from the settlement itself,” This is particularly where the parties have expressly agreed to resolve future disputes through arbitration.
Case Title : Prasar Bharati v. Stracon India Ltd & Anr.; Stracon India Ltd v. Prasar Bharati
Case Number : FAO(OS) (COMM) 132/2020 and FAO(OS) (COMM) 179/2020 (with connected applications)
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 75
The Delhi High Court has dismissed cross-appeals by Prasar Bharati and Stracon India Ltd, an overseas sports marketing company, upholding a single judge's ruling that only seven days of international cricket were missing under their BCCI broadcast marketing contract, and not seventeen as awarded by the arbitrator. A Division Bench of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Madhu Jain agreed with the Single Judge that the arbitrator had wrongly excluded a 10-day India–Australia–New Zealand Triangular Series while calculating the shortfall.
The Division Bench rejected both sides' challenges. It refused to accept Prasar Bharati's attempt to rely on definitions from its separate agreement with the BCCI. "Unlike the BCCI Agreement, the Global Rights Agreement did not define the term "Cricket Season". It did not even state that as the Agreement was being executed in the middle of a Cricket Season, there shall be a proportionate reduction of the number of days ofnInternational Cricket for the first season. The definition of Cricket Season from the BCCI Agreement therefore, cannot be imported into the Global Rights Agreement to modify the terms thereof,” the court said.
Delhi High Court Orders Perjury Complaint Against Walmark Officials In Fortis Arbitration Case
Case Title : Walmark Holdings Limited v. Fortis Healthcare Limited
Case Number : CRL.M.A. 11201/2020 in O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 170/2019
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 64
The Delhi High Court has directed its Registrar General to lodge a criminal complaint for perjury against two officials of Walmark Holdings Limited for making false statements and swearing affidavits before the court in an arbitration-related dispute with Fortis Healthcare Limited. The court held that this was a fit case to invoke its powers under the Criminal Procedure Code for making false statements and swearing affidavits. The court held that this was a fit case to invoke its powers under the Criminal Procedure Code for making false statements and swearing affidavits.
The case concerned a draft term sheet dated December 6th, 2017. Walmark relied on the document while seeking interim reliefs against Fortis in proceedings under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The High Court held that a case had been made out for invoking its jurisdiction under Section 340 of the Criminal Procedure Code. It directed the Registrar General to lodge a formal complaint before the concerned Judicial Magistrate within four weeks.
Delhi High Court Appoints Arbitrator After Earlier Plea Before UP Court Was Withdrawn
Case Title : Mr. Mohd. Khalid v. M/S Jai Mata Di Packaging Through Its Partners & Ors.
Case Number : ARB.P. 1115/2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 60
The Delhi High Court has recently allowed a plea to appoint an arbitrator in a dispute between partners of a firm, rejecting an objection that sought to block the case by relying on an earlier, abandoned court proceeding. Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar said the objection under Section 42 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act could not succeed because the earlier case filed in another court had been withdrawn without any decision.
Section 42 is meant to prevent different courts from hearing the same arbitration dispute. It says that once one court has taken up the matter, other courts should not deal with it. The court clarified that this rule applies only when a court has actually taken up and dealt with the case.
“A withdrawn petition cannot be equated with a decided or pending application. To hold otherwise would be to confer upon an abandoned proceeding a jurisdiction-creating effect, which Section 42 neither contemplates nor permits. Jurisdiction under Section 42 crystallises only when a court validly assumes seisin; it does not survive the abandonment of proceedings by the party who invoked the court‟s jurisdiction in the first place.”
Arbitrator Cannot Grant Claims Contrary To Clear Contract Terms, Delhi High Court Reiterates
Case Title : Jay Gee Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. Indraprastha Power Generation Co. Ltd.
Case Number : FAO(OS) 223/2010
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 50
The Delhi High Court, reiterating a settled law, has said that additional compensation cannot be granted where a claim runs contrary to clear contractual terms, even if an arbitrator has allowed it. Holding so, The court granted relief to Indraprastha Power Generation by setting aside portions of the arbitral award that were contrary to the contract with Jay Gee Construction A Division Bench of Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar observed that an arbitral tribunal cannot grant relief by ignoring express provisions agreed upon between the parties.
Case Title : Delhi Jal Board v. M/S Mohini Electricals Ltd
Case Number : FAO(OS)(COMM) 210/2022 & CM APPL. 36624/2022
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 46
The Delhi High Court has held that financing charges under a FIDIC-based construction contract can be claimed only on amounts that are formally certified or have clearly become payable under the contract, and not on disputed or unverified claims. A Division Bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla partly allowed an appeal filed by the Delhi Jal Board against a Single Judge order that had upheld an arbitral award in favour of Mohini Electricals Ltd., setting aside the portion of the award that granted financing charges on uncertified claims.
The court said an arbitrator cannot ignore mandatory payment conditions written into the contract. "Self-serving documents, unsupported by corroborative proof, cannot be treated as evidence of actual expenditure. Reliance on such material renders the impugned award unsupported by evidence and squarely places it within the category of a finding based on “no evidence,” the bench said.
Case Title: Natasha Oberoi v. Rajaraman Shankar & Ors.
Case Number: O.M.P. (I) (COMM.) 373/2025 & I.A. 22577-78/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 47
A single judge bench of Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav said that arbitration requires clear and demonstrable consent. The court observed that "Thus, the mere existence of a document, despite it containing an arbitration clause, and persons, even if they are party to it, would not qualify as an ―arbitration agreement‖ unless it is signed by the parties, including the party seeking to invoke the clause as also the party against whom enforcement is sought."
“The naming of an interested party as an adjudicator between the parties,” the court said, “may be an indication of the clause not intending to be a binding process to decide their substantive rights and liabilities, but an in-house, pre-escalation, resolution-oriented mechanism.” On these findings, the High Court dismissed the petition, holding that there was no valid arbitration agreement and that interim relief under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act was not available.
Bombay High Court
Case Title: State of Maharashtra v. M/s Patwardhan Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : Arbitration Appeal No. 33 of 2015
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 35
The Bombay High Court has set aside an arbitral award that granted toll loss compensation to a private concessionaire by treating pre-contract Minutes of Meeting as a binding part of the contract. Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan held that the arbitral tribunal had misread the contract, effectively converting a force majeure clause into a guaranteed revenue mechanism. The Court said this interpretation was an “impossible view,” “irrational,” and suffered from “manifest perversity,” and held that it violated the fundamental public policy of Indian law.
The court held that treating the meeting notes as a binding amendment effectively rewrote the contract and upset its basic risk-sharing structure. "What the Learned Arbitral Tribunal and the Section 34 Court have done is turn this on its head. They have simply taken the observations in the MOM to treat them as an amendment not just to the benchmark for compensating for a force majeure event but even for circumstances that do not even constitute a force majeure event," the court observed.
Case Title : Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. vs. Om Constraction on behalf of Om Constraction Nice Projects Limited JV
Case Number : Commercial Arbitration Petition (Lodg.) No. 28685 of 2024
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 36
The Bombay High Court has set aside a Rs 19.82 crore arbitral award against state-run Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., holding that the arbitral tribunal followed an “unusual process, unknown to law” and wrongly prevented the company from raising a defence that struck at the validity of the contract itself. Justice Sandeep V Marne said the arbitrator shut out HPCL from raising objections based on suppression and fraud after those facts came to light.
Justice Sandeep V Marne said the arbitrator shut out HPCL from raising objections based on suppression and fraud after those facts came to light.
This, the court said, was against the most basic notions of justice. “It is clearly against the most basic notions of justice to disallow a party to raise the defence of validity of contract after it discovers the act of suppression,” the court observed, adding that the resulting award was “patently illegal.”
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, the 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. Crucially, the court noted that the exhibitions were being organised by a separate entity that was not a party to the arbitration agreement. Since the interim reliefs were sought directly against that third party and not as a consequence of restraining a contracting party, the court said such relief could not be granted on the facts of the case.
Bombay High Court Grants Interim Relief To Aditya Birla Housing In Dispute With Axis Bank
Case Title : Aditya Birla Housing Finance Ltd v. Axis Bank Ltd & Ors.
Case Number : Commercial Arbitration Petition No. 104 of 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 37
The Bombay High Court has granted interim protection to Aditya Birla Housing Finance Ltd after finding that Axis Bank, despite knowing that its loan was being taken over, allowed borrowers to misuse a small unpaid balance to continue operating an overdraft account and retain custody of mortgaged title deeds. Justice Sandeep V. Marne held that interim measures were necessary to protect the subject matter of arbitration between Aditya Birla Housing and the borrowers, even though the relief operated against Axis Bank, which is not a party to the loan agreement.
The court observed that in the arbitration between Aditya Birla Housing and the borrowers, relief would necessarily be sought in respect of the mortgaged property. “This is how the arbitral proceedings are bound to affect the Axis Bank,” it said. It further held, “If the interim measures are not granted against Axis Bank, it would frustrate the Petitioner's claim against the borrowers by selling the subject property. Petitioner would suffer irreparable loss if interim measures are not granted.” On that basis, the court concluded that "making interim measures against the third party–Axis Bank is clearly warranted in the facts of the present case."
Madras High Court
Madras High Court Sets Aside Arbitral Award After Railways Unilaterally Appointed Tribunal
Case Title : RPN Engineers Chennai Pvt. Ltd. v. The General Manager, Integral Coach Factory & Anr.
Case Number : Arbitration Original Petition (Com.Div.) No.503 of 2022 and Application No.4187 of 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 27
The Madras High Court has recently struck down an arbitral award in a dispute with the Integral Coach Factory after finding that the Railways unilaterally appointed the arbitral tribunal, even though the contractor had clearly objected to the process. Justice N. Anand Venkatesh held that the arbitral award stood “vitiated due to lack of jurisdiction” since the tribunal had been unilaterally constituted.
Finding that the award had been passed without jurisdiction, the court set it aside, while leaving it open to the parties to seek the appointment of a fresh arbitral tribunal in accordance with law.
Bias of Even One Arbitrator Taints Entire Arbitral Award: Madras High Court
Case Title : M/s.Muthu Construction v. Union of India
Case Number : Arbitration O.P.(Com.Div.) No.603 of 2022
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 24
The Madras High Court has set aside an arbitral award, holding that the bias of even a single arbitrator is sufficient to vitiate the entire award, even where the decision is unanimous. Justice N. Anand Venkatesh said parties are entitled to an arbitral tribunal that is impartial in its entirety and not merely a neutral majority. Bias, the court held, violates Section 18 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which requires equal treatment of parties, and also goes against the fundamental policy of Indian law.
The court observed, “It is impossible to know whether or to what extent the participation of the biased member affected the tribunal's decision. It cannot be assumed that the presumed impartiality and independence of one of the co-arbitrators of the panel rendered it harmless. In other words, a party is entitled to an independent and impartial tribunal, which means that all the members of the tribunal must be impartial and without bias. In the absence of the same, the bias of even a single member will necessarily vitiate the award rendered by the Arbitral Tribunal.”
Calcutta High Court
Court Can Extend Arbitrator's Mandate Even After Its Expiry: Calcutta High Court
Case Title : Andaman and Nicobar Islands Integrated Corporation Ltd. v. M/s Heaven on Ocean Tourism Pvt. Ltd
Case Number : AP/2/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 18
The Calcutta High Court has reiterated that an arbitrator's authority does not end automatically on expiry of the time limit prescribed under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The court said that it retains the power to extend an arbitrator's mandate even after expiry of the time fixed and that in this case the parties had consented by their conduct. Applying this settled position, the court extended the mandate of the arbitrator in the case before it and refused to terminate the proceedings at an advanced stage. Justice Arindam Mukherjee, sitting at the Circuit Bench in Port Blair, noted that the order appointing the arbitrator had fixed an 18-month period but did not state that this timeline was final or incapable of extension.
“An order should not be read as status,” the court observed, adding that “in absence of any specific stipulation that the time cannot be extended it has to be construed that time can be extended.”
Case Title: Zillion Infraprojects Private Limited v. Bridge And Roof Company India Limited
Case Number: AP-COM 913 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 15
The Calcutta High Court has reiterated that where an arbitral tribunal conclusively rejects claims as barred by limitation, such a determination amounts to an interim award and is amenable to challenge under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and not under Section 37. While Section 34 provides the remedy for challenging arbitral awards, Section 37 is confined to appeals against limited procedural or jurisdictional orders passed during the arbitral process.
Explaining the law, the court observed, “The nomenclature assigned to an order by the arbitral tribunal is not determinative; rather, it is the substance and effect of the order that governs the issue of maintainability. The Court must therefore ascertain whether the impugned determination is in the nature of a jurisdictional ruling under Section 16 of the Act, amenable to an appeal under Section 37(2), or whether it constitutes an interim award finally deciding certain claims, thereby attracting a challenge under Section 34.”
Case Title : C & E Limited and Others Vs. Gopal Das Bagri and Others
Case Number : A.P.O. No. 184 of 2023 In AP No. 402 of 2020, IA No: GA 2 of 2023
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 27
The Calcutta High Court has held that parties to an arbitration cannot introduce completely new material for the first time at the appellate stage (Section 37) of arbitration proceedings if such material could have been produced earlier but was not placed before the court when the arbitral award was initially challenged (Section 34). The court emphasised that an appeal at this stage is not an opportunity to cure evidentiary lapses or supplement the record belatedly.
A division bench of Justices Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Supratim Bhattacharya made the observation while deciding cross-appeals arising from an arbitral award dated February 29, 2020. The award had been set aside by a single judge of the High Court on July 27, 2023.
Case Title : Smt. Jaya Kar v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : IA No. GA 2 OF 2021 AP-550 OF 2017
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 21
The Calcutta High Court has dismissed an application seeking to challenge an arbitral award after finding that it was filed in the wrong proceeding. The Court held that once it appoints an arbitrator, it cannot entertain further applications in that case and that any challenge to an award must be filed separately under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
Justice Gaurang Kanth said, “the present application came to be filed in the disposed of Section 11 proceedings owing to an inadvertent and bona fide mistake on the part of the learned Counsel, such an error cannot confer jurisdiction upon this Court where none exists. Procedural latitude, howsoever liberal, cannot be extended so as to defeat the statutory scheme of the Act, particularly when the remedy and forum for assailing an arbitral award are specifically delineated.”
“Unlike in Swadha Builders, the proceedings under Section 11 herein had attained finality upon appointment of the Arbitrator, and this Court had not retained seisin over the matter nor granted any leave to file subsequent applications,” the court observed.
Council Members Changed Between Hearing and Award: Calcutta High Court Sets Aside MSME Award
Case Title : The Board Of Major Port Authority For The Syama Prasad Mookerjee Port, Kolkata v. Marinecraft Engineers Private Limited
Case Number : A.P.O.T No. 195 of 2025; AP-COM 296 of 2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 25
The Calcutta High Court has set aside an arbitral award passed by the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Facilitation Council.It held that the award in this case could not stand because it was delivered by a differently constituted tribunal than the one that heard the parties A division bench of Justice Debangsu Basak and Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi found that the dispute was heard over several years but the Council's composition kept changing. The members who finally delivered and signed the award were not the same in material part as those who had heard the matter on merits.
The court noted, “there is a change in the position of the Arbitral Tribunal between the last date of its meeting on May 12, 2021 and the date when the award was passed on April 28, 2022. At least two of the members of the Council stood changed in between the last two dates.” Allowing the appeal, the High Court stressed that arbitral proceedings must comply with natural justice. The bench said, “. That arbitral decisions must adhere to principles of natural justice is the public policy of India, is trite law. Any breach of the principles of natural justice or the award being contrary to the fundamental policy of Indian laws allows re-appreciation of the award under Section 34 of the Act of 1996”
Karnataka High Court
Case Title : Raghavendra & Anr. v. Vijaykumar
Case Number : Civil Misc. Petition No. 100019 of 2024
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 9
The Karnataka High Court has held that an arbitration clause contained in a partnership reconstitution deed cannot be enforced b a person who has not signed the deed, and that in such circumstances, the court cannot appoint an arbitrator under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Justice Lalitha Kanneganti made the observation in an order dated January 7 while hearing a petition filed by two outgoing partners of Shree Raghavendra Industries, seeking appointment of an arbitrator under an arbitration clause contained in a reconstitution deed dated March 18, 2023. The Court held that a reconstitution deed cannot bind a party who has not signed it. As there was no valid arbitration agreement, the Court declined to appoint an arbitrator under Section 11 of the Act and dismissed the petition.
Kerala High Court
Case Title : Athira K.S. v. Kotak Mahindra Prime Ltd. & Anr.
Case Number : Arb.A No. 23 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (KER) 8
The Kerala High Court has held that its role is limited when hearing an appeal against an interim order passed under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. At this stage, the court cannot examine whether the arbitrator was properly appointed or has the authority to act. A Single Judge Bench of Justice S Manu said such objections must be raised before the arbitral tribunal itself. “Competency of the Arbitral Tribunal is a matter to be raised before the Tribunal by the party having a contention that the Arbitrator is incompetent. Such a contention cannot be considered in this arbitration appeal,” the court said.
“If there is serious dispute regarding the propriety of engagement of the arbitrator, the same shall also be raised before the arbitral tribunal,” the court said. The appeal was dismissed, with liberty to the appellant to seek appropriate relief from the arbitrator.
Circular
Road Transport Ministry Revises Highway Contracts, Bars Arbitration For ₹10 Crore-Plus Disputes
By : Ministry of Road Transport and Highways
Date: 12th January, 2026
Disputes valued at Rs 10 crore or more, as well as declaratory and non-monetary disputes, under national highway contracts will no longer be referred to arbitration, under a circular issued by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways on January 12, 2026. Such disputes will instead be dealt with through conciliation, without barring the parties from approaching civil courts.Under the revised framework, claims valued below Rs 10 crore may continue to be referred to institutional arbitration, either before the Society for Affordable Redressal of Disputes or the India International Arbitration Centre. Arbitration has, however, been expressly excluded for disputes of ₹10 crore or more and for declaratory or non-monetary disputes. The change has been made in line with guidelines issued by the Ministry of Finance on June 3, 2024 on arbitration and mediation in domestic public procurement contracts.