Power To Extend Mandate Of Arbitrator Appointed By HC Rests Exclusively With High Court: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court dismissed a revisional application filed by Cosmic MAPL JV challenging the Commercial Court's refusal to extend the mandate of an arbitrator under Section 29A(4) and 29A(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act). Justice Shampa Sarkar held that in cases where the referral court is the High Court under section 11, it also becomes the competent court to entertain applications for extension or substitution of arbitrators under section 29A. ...

Writ Petition Filed To Bypass Pre-Deposit Requirement Under MSMED Act Is Not Maintainable: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court dismissed a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging an award passed by the West Bengal Micro & Small Enterprises Facilitation Council (MSEFC), holding that the petition was not maintainable and was filed to evade pre-deposit requirement under section 19 of the MSMED Act, 2006. Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya held that the Facilitation Council had jurisdiction to entertain the reference under section 18 and the buyer (Kommoners Club...

Delhi High Court Rejects DDA's Arbitration Appeal, Holds Revaluation Of Evidence Impermissible U/S 37 A&C Act

The Delhi High Court on December 11, 2025 upheld an Arbitral Award that favoured a contractor, M/s Harjinder Brothers, in a dispute over encashment of a bank guarantee and non-payment of "watch and ward" security expenses, dismissing an appeal filed by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA). The Court presided by Hon'ble Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha reaffirmed that the appellate courts are not permitted to re-evaluate evidence under 37, and held that the arbitrator's decision is a "possible and...

Question On Existence Of Arbitration Clause Cannot Be Re-agitated U/S 11 After Being Settled U/S 8 A&C Act: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav has observed that when a party invokes Section 11(6), Arbitration and Conciliation Act (“ACA”) after a judicial authority has declined a referral under Section 8, ACA, it is impermissible for the Court to appoint an arbitrator, owing to issue estoppel and also res judicata.FactsThe Petitioner i.e. JSW MG Motor India Pvt Ltd. (“JSW”), an automobile company filed the present petition against the Respondent i.e. M/s Tristar Auto...

Seven-Year Delay Violates Public Policy: Madras High Court Quashes ₹51.48 Lakh Award Against TN Housing Board

The Madras High Court has set aside an arbitral award of ₹51.48 lakhs passed in favour of the contractor, M/s. N.C.C. Ltd., on the ground of an inexplicable and excessive seven-year delay in its decision.On December 8th, 2025, Justice N. Anand Venkatesh ruled that such a delay, which is "explicit and adversely reflects on the findings," renders the award in conflict with the public policy of India and is vitiated by patent illegality, thereby attracting the provisions of Section 34 of the...

Award By Arbitrator Appointed By HC In International Commercial Arbitration Invalid Even If Parties Consent To Appointment: Madras HC

The Madras High Court bench of Justice N Anand Venkatesh has observed that appointment of arbitrator by a high court in case of an international commercial arbitration renders the award a nullity. Sections 4 and 11(6), Arbitration and Conciliation Act (“ACA”) are non -derogable and it is only the Apex Court which can appoint an arbitrator in an international commercial arbitration. Facts The present petitions have been filed under Section 34, ACA by China Datang Technologies and...

Non-Signatory, Non-Existent LLP Cannot Invoke Arbitration Protection Through Group Of Companies Doctrine: Meghalaya High Court

The Meghalaya High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by Suraksha Salvia LLP against the State Government's termination of a Public-Private Partnership (PPP) for a diagnostic centre in Shillong, ruling that a company that was not even in existence on the date of agreement execution cannot seek protection under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The Division Bench comprising of Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice H.S. Thangkhiew, on Tuesday, upheld the Commercial Court's...

Bombay High Court Sets Aside Award Ordering Sharekhan To Refund Rs 4.87 Lakh In Brokerage

The Bombay High Court has set aside an arbitral award that had directed Sharekhan Limited, a broking firm, to refund Rs 4.87 lakh in brokerage to its client Darshini Shah. The court held that the arbitral tribunal had irrationally treated the same 2007 contract between the parties as valid for permitting trades but invalid for charging brokerage and that such a conclusion was fundamentally inconsistent with Indian contract law. A single bench of Justice Sandeep V Marne held on December 9, 2025,...

NAFED's 'Society Commission' Deductions From Rice Millers' Bills Contrary To Contract: Orissa High Court Upholds Refund Award

The Orissa High Court bench of Justice (Dr.) Sanjeeb K Panigrahi while dismissing an appeal under Section 37, Arbitration and Conciliation (“ACA”) observed that deductions from invoices made by NAFED under the head “society commission” were contrary to the contractual agreements entered with rice millers and the latter were entitled to reimbursement of such deducted amounts. The Court affirmed the judgment of the District Judge upholding the findings by the Sole Arbitrator who held the...

Calcutta High Court Upholds ₹29.96 Crore Arbitral Award Against Bihar State Power Generation Company, Refuses To Interfere In Barauni Power Plant Dispute

The Calcutta High Court, Commercial Division, dismissed a petition filed by the Managing Director, Bihar State Power Generation Co. Ltd. (BSPGCL) under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, challenging an arbitral award passed in favour of R S Constructions. Justice Gaurang Kanth, on 4th December, 2025, while upholding the finality of the arbitral award, ruled that the arbitral tribunal had adopted a “logical, reasoned and plausible” view while granting compensation ...

DDA Has No Obligation To Provide Infrastructure Before Full Payment On Plots Sold On 'As Is Where Is Basis: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh observed that where DDA has sold plots to buyers on “as is where is basis”, the buyer cannot refuse to pay the balance sale consideration on the ground that DDA did not provide the requisite civic amenities. In such a situation, DDA has no obligation to provide the facilities as a pre-requisite to full payment. Facts The Petitioner i.e. M/s Sunlight Project Pvt Ltd (“Sunlight”) filed the present petition under Section 34,...

Interpreting Property's 'Built-Up Area Wall-To-Wall' As Carpet Area Is Commercially Sound: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court has dismissed a petition under section 34 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) filed by the Developer-partners of Lukhi Associates challenging a 2020 arbitral award arising out of disputes under a 2010 Development Agreement with the Saini family. Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan upheld the award, holding that “what the Learned Arbitral Tribunal has found would draw sustenance from the principle of giving commercial contracts a commercial...