Karnataka High Court Refuses New Arbitrator After Award, Says Fresh Appointment Would Reopen Proceedings

The Karnataka High Court has recently refused to appoint a substitute arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act after an award had already been passed and the matter was remanded only for a limited purpose, holding that such reconstitution would effectively reopen concluded arbitral proceedings. Dismissing a plea filed by SSV Developers and its Managing Partner Vijaykumar Krishnasa Kabadi, Justice Lalitha Kanneganti held that once an award is passed and the case is...

Contracts Terminable For Breach With Cure Period Not Determinable: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has recently observed that a contract which permits termination only for material breach and subject to a mandatory cure period is not “in its nature determinable” under Section 14(d) of the Specific Relief Act. Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar stayed the operation and effect of the termination notice dated January 2, 2026, issued by Pushpawati Singhania Research Institute (PSRI) to Mahajan Imaging Pvt Ltd. He also directed both sides to maintain status quo until the...

Sole Arbitrator May Be Appointed To Reduce Costs Despite Three-Member Clause: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has held that where an arbitration clause provides for a three-member tribunal but the parties fail to appoint arbitrators, the Court can appoint a sole arbitrator if a party seeks it to reduce costs. Justice Subhash Vidyarthi held “although the arbitration agreement contained provision for constituting a panel of three arbitrators – one arbitrator to be appointed by each of the parties and the third arbitrator or the umpire being appointed by the two...

Jurisdictional Objection Rejected By Arbitrator Cannot Be Challenged Under Article 227: Telengana High Court

The Telangana High Court has recently held that its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution cannot be invoked to challenge an arbitral tribunal's rejection of a jurisdictional objection when the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 provides a specific post-award remedy. Dismissing a writ petition filed by Sagar Asia Private Limited, a Division Bench of Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice Gadi Praveen Kumar held that the petitioner must await the arbitral award and...

Delhi High Court Sets Aside ₹5.19 crore Award Against Railways Board After Serving Officer Appointed As Arbitrator

The Delhi High Court has set aside a ₹5.19 crore arbitral award against the Railways Board after the Railways challenged the legality of the sole arbitrator it had appointed. The Court held that appointing a serving railway officer as arbitrator, without an express written waiver by both parties, rendered the award void from the beginning.Allowing a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Justice Avneesh Jhingan held, “The appointment of a serving employee as an...

Delhi High Court Confirms Arbitral Award Favoring Rama Constructions In Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium Dispute

The Delhi High Court on 25 February, upheld an arbitral award granting Rs. 80.05 lakh along with 10% interest to Rama Constructions Company in a dispute arising from civil and electrical works executed at the Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium Complex, New Delhi. Dismissing the Union of India's challenge, Justice Jasmeet Singh reiterated the limited scope of judicial interference, noting that the Arbitrator's findings were evidence-based and did not warrant interference under Section 34 of the...

Delhi High Court Appoints Arbitrator In ₹91 Lakh Benetton–Gini and Jony Payment Dispute

The Delhi High Court has appointed a sole arbitrator to adjudicate a Rs. 91,21,454 dispute between global fashion brand Benetton India Pvt Ltd and children's apparel company Gini and Jony Ltd arising out of unpaid dues under a 2014 Distribution Agreement. The Court held that whether subsequent settlement agreements superseded the original contract and extinguished the arbitration clause must be decided by the arbitral tribunal and not at the stage of appointment. Justice Jasmeet Singh ruled...

Arbitrator Appointed By Agreed Institution Not Per Se Unilateral: Madras High Court

Drawing a clear distinction between unilateral appointments and institutional nominations, the Madras High Court has held that an arbitrator appointed by an arbitral institution agreed upon by the parties cannot automatically be treated as a unilateral appointee, even if one side initiates the process. “The appointment of Arbitral Tribunal by an institution that is agreed upon between the parties per se cannot be dealt with in the same manner in which the Court deals with an unilateral...

Delhi High Court Dismisses IRCON Appeal Against Railway Construction Arbitral Award

The Delhi High Court has recently dismissed an intra court appeal filed by IRCON International Limited, reiterating that appellate courts have very limited room to interfere in arbitration matters. The court held that the arbitral tribunal's findings on how the excavation was classified and whether payment was due for tie bolts were purely factual determinations, which cannot be reopened under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. A Division Bench of Justice C....

Bombay High Court Upholds ₹496.48 Crore Metro One Award, Strikes Down ₹248 Crore For Lack Of Evidence

The Bombay High Court has partly upheld the Rs. 496.48 crore arbitral award in favour of Mumbai Metro One Private Limited arising from the Metro Line 1 project, but has set aside nearly Rs. 248 crore awarded under three heads of damages, finding that those components were not backed by evidence. Justice Sandeep V. Marne underscored that courts are required to respect the finality of arbitral awards and cannot interfere lightly. At the same time, he made it clear that intervention is justified...

Appellate Court Cannot Reassess Valuation Findings in Arbitration Appeal: Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court

The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has held that an arbitral award determining compensation under the National Highways Act cannot be interfered with in a Section 37 appeal merely because another view on valuation is possible. Dismissing two appeals filed by the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI), Justice Javed Iqbal Wani reiterated that Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 provides only a limited right of appeal. “Section 37 of the Act of 1996...

Bombay High Court Modifies Arbitral Order On TDR Sale, Upholds Stay On Termination In Redevelopment Dispute

The Bombay High Court has partly modified an arbitral tribunal's interim order in a redevelopment dispute, holding that the tribunal exceeded the scope of interim protection in prescribing the manner in which Transferable Development Rights (TDR) could be sold. Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan was hearing an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, filed by landowner Khimchand Prithviraj Kothari against an interim order passed in favour of developer Earth Realtors. ...