Bombay High Court Upholds Validity Of ODR Clause, Refuses Substitution Of Arbitrator Appointed Through ODR Platform

The Bombay High Court has upheld the validity of an Online Dispute Resolution (“ODR”) clause as well as the arbitrator appointment process conducted through an ODR platform. The Petitioner i.e. Amit Chaurasia (“Chaurasia”) filed an application for substitution of arbitrator. The Bench of Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan reviewed the contract between the parties and observed that the parties had agreed to ODR at the hands of an ODR agency. The ODR agency had given opportunities to the...

Extra Profit Received By Broker Due To Technical Glitch Not Unjust Enrichment: Bombay High Court Upholds Award In Favour Of Kotak Securities

The Bombay High Court has held that profits earned by a client by utilising an increased trading margin erroneously reflected due to a technical glitch in the broker's system cannot be treated as “unjust enrichment”. The Court observed that mere availability of margin created an opportunity to trade, but the profits ultimately arose from the client's skill and risk-taking, and not automatically from the margin itself.Justice Sandeep V. Marne was hearing a petition filed by Kotak Securities...

Bombay High Court Upholds Arbitral Award Granting Specific Performance Of Development Agreement Between BTRA & Nilkanth Enterprise

The Bombay High Court recently dismissed a petition under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) upholding a 2017 arbitral award directing specific performance of a long negotiated development transaction concerning 57,000 sq. m. of land in Ghatkopar (West), Mumbai. Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan held that “there is nothing on record to show that Nilkanth was unwilling or incapable of performing its part of the bargain. This contention too does not...

Withdrawal Of Consent Of Affiliation By Jamia Hamdard Violated Orders, Frustrated Arbitral Process: Delhi High Court Restores 150 MBBS Seats

The Delhi High Court on December 8th, 2025 held that the withdrawal of the Consent of Affiliation (CoA) by Jamia Hamdard Deemed University (JHDU), necessary for the 150 MMBS seats in the Hamdard Institute of Medical Sciences & Research (HIMSR) violated the binding arbitral and court orders, “frustrating” the arbitral process. The Bench comprising of Justice Jasmeet Singh, holding that “JHDU was fully aware of the subsisting obligations” under the arbitral award and yet “there was no legally...

Review Petition Can't Be Entertained Against Order Refusing To Appoint Arbitrator: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court held that review petitions challenging orders passed under section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) are not maintainable, reiterating that the arbitration act is a self contained code and does not permit substantive review unless expressly provided. Justice S. Manu dismissed a review petition filed against an order passed by the court refusing to appoint the arbitrator, holding that the High Court becomes functus-officio after...

S.11 Arbitration Plea Not Maintainable Without Valid S.21 Notice; Email Suggesting Arbitrator Appointment Insufficient: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court dismissed an arbitration request filed under section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) holding that the applicants failed to send a valid notice under section 21 which is a pre-condition for invoking jurisdiction of the court for appointment of an arbitrator. Justice S. Manu held that email relied upon by the applicants merely asking the respondents to suggest an arbitrator did not mention any specific dispute, any arbitration...

Delay Attributable To State: Sikkim High Court Affirms Arbitral Award Of ₹5.88 Crore; Rejects State's Challenge

The High Court of Sikkim dismissed an appeal under section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) filed by the State of Sikkim and its Power Department challenging an arbitral award that granted escalation and interest to contractor for work executed on a 66/11KV sub-station project at Mangan. A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Biswanath Somadder and Justice Bhaskar Raj Pradhan upheld the order passed by the Commercial Court holding that neither patent...

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...