LiveLawBiz Arbitration Cases Monthly Digest: April 2026
Shivani PS
3 May 2026 6:25 PM IST
Supreme Court
Case Title MCM Worldwide Private Limited v. M/s. Construction Industry Development Council
Case Number Civil Appeal (arising out of SLP (C) No. 33075 of 2025)
Citation 2026 LLBiz SC 171
The Supreme Court has recently held that when a claim is challenged as time-barred to question an arbitrator's jurisdiction, and the arbitrator rejects that objection, the party cannot challenge it midway and must wait until the final award.
A Division Bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and K. Vinod Chandran observed that
"In that situation, there is no option for the party aggrieved by the decision of the arbitrator upon the application filed under Section 16 except to wait till the conclusion of the arbitral proceedings and then raise that issue by way of an application under Section 34 against the final award."
Supreme Court Stays Arbitration In ₹36.53 Crore AP E-Challan Dispute Involving Digi Yatra Developer
Case Title : The State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. M/s Dataevolve Solutions Pvt Limited
Case Number : Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No. 9572/2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz SC 169
The Supreme Court recently stayed further arbitration proceedings in a Rs. 36.53 crore dispute between the Andhra Pradesh government and Dataevolve Solutions Pvt. Ltd., the developer of the Digi Yatra app, over settlement of accounts under an e-challan software contract.
A Bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant and comprising Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi issued notice on the State's special leave petition challenging the Andhra Pradesh High Court's order appointing a sole arbitrator, as well as on its applications seeking condonation of delay. The Court directed that further arbitration proceedings shall remain stayed and listed the matter for May 25, 2026.
Case Title : M/S PARAMOUNT LEARNING SOLUTIONS AND ORS. Versus AAKASH EDUCATIONAL SERVICES LTD.
Case Number : Diary No. 22100-2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz SC 173
The Supreme Court of India on Tuesday dismissed a plea by Paramount Learning Solutions in a franchise dispute involving an Aakash Educational Services Ltd. coaching centre.
It declined to interfere with the Delhi High Court's judgment of August 7, 2025, which had upheld an arbitral award in favour of Aakash.
A Bench of Justices P.S. Narasimha and Alok Aradhe declined to interfere with the High Court's ruling. The High Court had affirmed an arbitral award relating to the operation of an Aakash coaching centre at Pathankot. It directed Paramount Learning Solutions to pay about Rs. 66.31 lakh to Aakash.
Legal Representatives Have Right To Challenge Arbitral Awards That Bind Them: Supreme Court
Case Title : V.K. John S. Mukanchand Bothra and HUF (Died) Represented By Lrs. & Ors.
Case Number : SLP (C) 16162 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 163
The Supreme Court on Monday held that if an arbitral award can be enforced against the legal representatives of a deceased party, they must also have the right to challenge it under the law, holding that such representatives “step into the shoes” of the deceased for the purposes of arbitral proceedings. A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Vipul M. Pancholi observed that the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is a self-contained code and emphasises continuity of arbitral proceedings, particularly in situations where a party dies during the process.
“In our view, when the scheme of the Act is towards continuity of arbitral proceedings, in the event of death of a party, the natural corollary, evident from the definition clause itself, is that upon the death of a party, legal representatives' step into the shoes of a party for the purposes of the Act,” the court said.
Unsuccessful Party Can Seek Interim Relief Under Arbitration Act: Supreme Court
Case Title : Home Care Retail Marts Pvt. Ltd. vs. Haresh N. Sanghavi
Case Number : Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 29972/2015, 26876/2014 & 11139/2020
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 168
The Supreme Court of India on Friday held that any party to an arbitration agreement, including one that has been unsuccessful in arbitral proceedings and has no enforceable award in its favour, is entitled to seek interim relief under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. It clarified that such relief can be sought at the post-award stage but before enforcement. A Bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Manoj Misra observed that “Section 9 of the Act commences with the expression 'a party', which, by virtue of Section 2(h) of the Act, is defined as 'a party to an arbitration agreement'. Neither Section 2(h) nor Section 9 of the Act draws any distinction between a successful and an unsuccessful party in arbitration proceedings.”
Case Title : VPS Healthcare Private Limited & Anr v. Prabhat Kumar Srivastava & Anr
Case Number : Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 23869 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 150
The Supreme Court on Monday held that obligations undertaken by promoters of Rockland Hospitals (now Medeor Hospitals) under a consent arbitral award are immediately enforceable and cannot be deferred until confirmation by the highest court of appeal. Setting aside the Delhi High Court's judgment, the Court termed its interpretation “paradoxical” for deferring the promoters' liability until confirmation by the 'Highest Court of Appeal'.
A Bench of Justices S.V.N. Bhatti and Prasanna B. Varale held that such an interpretation would render the undertaking under the consent award a nullity, which “cannot be the intention of the parties”. “The High Court's interpretation produces a paradox. If liability is payable only after confirmation by the Supreme Court, the Promoters can choose not to pursue the appeal to the Supreme Court, so no liability is confirmed against the Promoters. This would render the undertaking under Paragraph 32(a) meaningless. Nullity cannot be the intention of the parties to the Consent Award”, the court observed.
Case Title : J&K Economic Reconstruction Agency v. Rash Builders India Private Limited
Case Number : 2026 INSC 368
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 155
The Supreme Court of India has set aside an order of the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court which had declined to hear a challenge to an arbitral award on the ground that it was delivered in New Delhi, holding that jurisdiction lies with courts at the seat of arbitration and cannot shift based on where proceedings are conducted or the award is rendered. A Bench of Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Alok Aradhe said, “The mere fact that arbitral proceedings are conducted or the award is rendered at a particular place does not confer jurisdiction on courts of that place if it is different from the designated seat. The seat remains fixed unless expressly altered by agreement of the parties.”
Case Title : Nagreeeka Indcon Products Pvt. Ltd. v. Cargocare Logistics (India) Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 19026 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 158
The Supreme Court on Friday held that an arbitration clause using the word “can” does not make arbitration mandatory, ruling that parties cannot be compelled to arbitrate unless there is a clear and binding agreement to that effect under Section 7 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. A Division Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh held that the clause in question only indicates a possibility of arbitration and not a binding obligation.
“The clause subject matter of dispute in this appeal indicates merely the future possibility of referring disputes to arbitration and as such, it cannot be said to be a binding arbitration agreement. In other words, the possibility of arbitration being used to settle disputes is open however, for the disputes to be settled by arbitration, further agreement between the parties would be required and needless to add, such an agreement can only come into existence when both parties agree to the same. In that view of the matter, we are of the considered view that this appeal is bereft of merit,” the Court observed.
Case Title : MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED (MSEDCL) & ORS. VS R Z MALPANI
Case Number : SLP (C) No. 36889 OF 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 149
The Supreme Court on Thursday held that courts may refuse to refer parties to arbitration at the Section 11 stage in the rarest of rare cases where, even on a prima facie view, no arbitration agreement exists, carving out a narrow exception to the principle of minimal judicial interference.
Clarifying that judicial scrutiny at the stage of appointing arbitrators is otherwise limited to examining the prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement and that courts should follow the principle of “when in doubt, do refer”, a bench of Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Atul S. Chandurkar observed:
“It goes without saying that the scope of inquiry at the stage of Section 11 is extremely limited and only pertains to an examination about prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement. Judicial non-interference in the arbitration process is the sacrosanct principle which guides alternative dispute resolution and Courts must be highly circumspect in interfering at the referral stage, especially since there is no appeal available in the 1996 Act against an order under Section 11. The Arbitral Tribunal, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 16 must be left to decide on its jurisdiction. The Courts should follow the principle of 'When in doubt, do refer' and lean towards referring matters to arbitration when the arbitration agreement is prima facie existent.”
No Fresh Arbitration Maintainable On Same Cause Without Liberty To Refile: Supreme Court
Case Title : Rajiv Gaddh vs Subodh Prakash
Case Number : SLP (C) No. 4430 OF 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 137
The Supreme Court on Wednesday held that a litigant cannot initiate fresh arbitration proceedings on the same cause of action after abandoning earlier proceedings, emphasising that such conduct amounts to abuse of process and is barred by principles underlying Order 23 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. A bench of Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Alok Aradhe was hearing an appeal against the Punjab and Haryana High Court order dated November 8, 2024, which had allowed a fresh application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act for appointment of an arbitrator.
While setting aside the high court's order, the top court observed: “A litigant cannot be permitted to abuse the process of Court to file a fresh proceeding again on the same cause of action. The bar contained in Order 23 Rule 1 of the Code which applies to proceeding under Section 11 of the Act is founded on Public Policy.”
Case Title : NTPC Ltd Vs Micro And Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, Bhopal & Ors.
Case Number : Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 2461/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 138
The Supreme Court on Wednesday dismissed a special leave petition filed by NTPC Ltd, a government-owned power generation company, refusing to interfere with a Madhya Pradesh High Court order that declined to entertain its challenge to an MSME Facilitation Council award for non-compliance with the statutory pre-deposit requirement. A bench of Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Atul S. Chandurkar said, “After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, we see no reason and ground to interfere with the impugned judgment passed by the High Court. Accordingly, the special leave petition is dismissed.”
The High Court, by its order dated December 5, 2025, had upheld the decision of the Commercial Court, Bhopal, which dismissed NTPC's application under Section 19 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 for failure to deposit 75% of the awarded amount, a mandatory pre-condition for maintaining such a challenge.
High Courts
Delhi High Court
Case Title : OSA Vendita Pvt. Ltd. v. Bausch and Lomb India Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : O.M.P. (COMM) 336/2022
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 427
The Delhi High Court has recently upheld an arbitral award passed in favour of Bausch & Lomb India Pvt. Ltd., a leading eye-care products manufacturer. It rejected claims of OSA Vendita Pvt. Ltd., its non-exclusive distributor in Kolkata, for loss of profits.
The court found that the distributorship agreement for the supply of eye-care products did not stipulate any assured or fixed sales commitment. In the absence of such a stipulation, the distributor could not recover losses arising from unsold stock and related investments.
It also affirmed that the arbitral tribunal, being empowered under Section 19 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to regulate its own procedure, was right in rejecting the belated testimony of a new witness. The tribunal had also refused to accept additional documents sought to substantiate OSA Vendita's claim of business losses.
Justice Subramonium Prasad observed that “the Petitioner's attempt to fasten liability upon the Respondent for indemnification of its business losses is not stipulated in the Agreement. The Respondent cannot be held liable for losses incurred by the Petitioner in the conduct of its own business operations.”
Delhi High Court Upholds Award For HCL Technologies, Rejects Time Extension From Earlier Proceedings
Case Title : Sahaj Bharti Travels v. HCL Technologies Ltd.
Case Number : O.M.P. (COMM) 180/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 428
The Delhi High Court on 23 April upheld an arbitral award in favour of HCL Technologies Ltd., holding that Sahaj Bharti Travels' claim of over Rs. 3.27 crore towards unpaid Minimum Running Guarantee dues under an employee transport agreement was time-barred.
Justice Subramonium Prasad upheld the Tribunal's refusal to exclude the nearly three-year period (August 2019 to May 2022) spent before the NCLT and NCLAT while computing limitation, as the proceedings were dismissed on merits and not for lack of jurisdiction, and therefore did not satisfy Section 14 of the Limitation Act, as clarified in HPCL Bio-Fuels Ltd. v. Shahaji Bhanudas Bhad. He held:
“It is apposite to state that an application under Section 9 of the IBC and an application under Section 11(6) of the Act are sought for parallel reliefs and hence fails to meet the parameters set out in the HPCL Bio-Fuels Ltd”, adding that “the Tribunal has rightly declined the benefit of the aforesaid section to the Petitioner on the ground that the NCLAT dismissed its claim on merits and not on the question of jurisdiction.”
Case Title : PTC Techno Pvt. Ltd. v. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : O.M.P. (COMM) 129/2019
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 429
The Delhi High Court has recently set aside a 2018 arbitral award arising out of disputes between PTC Techno Pvt. Ltd. and Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., holding that the appointment of the arbitrator by an official of Samsung was legally impermissible.
A Single Bench of Justice Avneesh Jhingan held that the sole arbitrator, Justice Sunil Ambwani (Retd.), had been appointed by the Vice President of the respondent company, which was contrary to Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Court ruled that such an appointment is void ab initio and renders the arbitral proceedings and award a nullity.
“After amendment of Section 12(5) of the Act an employee of a party in dispute can neither be appointed arbitrator nor can nominate or appoint any other person as an arbitrator. The unilateral appointment in absence of an express agreement in writing by the parties to waive applicability of Section 12(5) of the Act is void ab initio," the court observed.
Case Title EMR Chowdary v. Engineering Projects (India) Limited & connected matter
Case Number O.M.P. (COMM) 400/2017 & O.M.P. (COMM) 408/2017
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 440
The Delhi High Court has upheld an arbitral award holding a subcontractor liable to pay over Rs.10 crore to the main contractor under a back-to-back contract for losses caused by its own poor performance.
Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar said: “The recovery of a proportionate share of those penalties from ACC, as the party whose underperformance caused the termination, is a straightforward application of the contractual framework and of the back-to-back principle that governed the parties throughout.”
“The recovery from ACC has been made contingent upon EPI having actually incurred, or being held liable to incur, such differential cost towards SCCL. The afore-said approach espoused by the learned Arbitrator is consistent with the back-to-back arrangement governing the parties, whereby ACC's liability is co-extensive with that of EPI,” the court said.
Case Title: NKG Infrastructure Ltd. v. Airport Authority of India
Case Number: O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 185/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 442
The Delhi High Court has recently restrained the Airport Authority of India from taking any further precipitative or coercive action against NKG Infrastructure Ltd. in relation to bank guarantees aggregating to Rs. 3.17 crore furnished for the Jabalpur Airport upgradation project, noting that the disputes are already under consideration before a Dispute Resolution Committee (DRC).
It clarified that the present order will not apply to two bank guarantees that have already been processed for encashment.
The court further directed that no coercive action shall be taken against the contractor for a period of ten days after the decision by the DRC.
A Single Bench of Justice Mini Pushkarna held:
“Accordingly, since hearing is already being granted and the matter is being taken up by the DRC in terms of Clause 25 of the Agreement between the parties, it is directed that no further precipitative action shall be taken by the respondent against the petitioner, till the proceedings before the DRC are finally adjudicated.”
“The respondent shall also not take coercive action against the petitioner for a further period of 10 days after the decision by the DRC in the proceedings, as aforesaid”, it added.
Amazon- Future Coupons Reach Settlement; Delhi High Court Disposes Challenge To SIAC Award
Case Title : Future Coupons Private Limited & Ors. v. Amazon.com NV Investment Holdings LLC & Ors.
Case Number : O.M.P. (COMM) 458/2025 & connected matters
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 443
The Delhi High Court on Tuesday permitted withdrawal of petitions filed by Future Coupons Private Limited and promoter entities, including Ashni Kishore Biyani, against a Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) award in their dispute with Amazon.
The award had held them in breach of contractual obligations and directed them to pay Rs 23.7 crore in damages, along with Rs 77.3 crore and SGD 68,550 towards costs, but the challenge was withdrawn after the parties entered into a settlement agreement dated March 13, 2026.
Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar recorded that “learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties are ad idem that the disputes between the parties stand resolved and the settlement has been formally reduced into a Settlement Agreement dated 13.03.2026.”
Society Election Disputes Involve Collective Rights, Not Arbitrable: Delhi High Court
Case Title : Nathu Ram Jain v. Akhil Bhartiya Agrawal Sammelan & Ors.
Case Number : ARB.P. 738/2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 426
Holding that disputes arising out of a society's election process are inherently non-arbitrable, the Delhi High Court refused to appoint an arbitrator and declined interim relief to stay the upcoming elections of the Akhil Bhartiya Agrawal Sammelan.
“An election of a society comprising approximately 1,20,000 members involves collective rights. A challenge to the election process, the appointment of a Chief Election Officer, or the validity of the voter list is not a private dispute between two individuals; it is an action in rem. The outcome of such a challenge affects the democratic rights of the entire electorate and the governing structure of the society as a whole. To put it differently, the disputes pertaining to election, which bind not only the contesting candidates but all those in the electoral roll, are inherently non-arbitrable,” Justice Vikas Mahajan held.
Case Title : UPM Kymmene Corporation v. The State Trading Corporation of India Ltd.
Case Number : EX.P. 82/2012
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 413
The Delhi High Court has said, in an arbitration dispute, that once a judgment debtor deposits the decretal amount in court, its liability stands discharged to that extent.
It went on to make clear that execution proceedings cannot be reopened simply because the decree holder decides not to withdraw the money and later tries to take advantage of a more favourable exchange rate.
Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar refused to reopen execution proceedings that had already been disposed of in May 2022, noting that the decretal amount of Rs. 2,89,90,273, arising from US$ 1,30,681.52 along with interest, had been deposited by The State Trading Corporation and remained available for withdrawal, which UPM Kymmene Corporation consciously chose not to avail.
Imposing Rs.1 lakh as costs for misuse of the judicial process, the court observed:
"In law, once a Judgment Debtor deposits the decretal amount in compliance with a judicial order, the obligation qua that extent stands discharged, and the amount is deemed to be placed at the disposal of the Decree Holder. The Court, in such circumstances, merely acts as a custodian of the funds. The liability of the Judgment Debtor does not remain in a state of perpetual flux merely because the Decree Holder elects not to withdraw the amount. To hold otherwise would be to ignore the settled principle that payment into Court, in compliance with judicial direction, constitutes satisfaction to that extent”
No Damages Without Proof Of Loss: Delhi High Court Partly Sets Aside Arbitral Award Against DJB
Case Title : Delhi Jal Board Versus M/S Metrro Waste Handling Private Limited
Case Number : O.M.P. (COMM) 277/2025 & I.A. 17526/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 394
The Delhi High Court on Monday partly set aside an arbitral award in favour of a contractor against the Delhi Jal Board (DJB), holding that damages cannot be granted on the basis of projected turnover without proof of actual loss. Justice Avneesh Jhingan held that "the award of damages in absence of evidence on record of actual loss suffered or a finding recorded that the loss suffered cannot be proved is in violation of Sections 73 and 74 of the Contract Act and against public policy. The tribunal awarded damages without considering the value of the machines, the usage these were put to, loss of business and other factors"
Case Title : Titagarh Rail Systems Limited v. Railway Board, Ministry of Railways
Case Number : FAO(OS) (COMM) 103/2026 & 104/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 406
On 13 April, the Delhi High Court held that an arbitral award is vitiated where the sole arbitrator is ineligible under Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and clarified that such ineligibility cannot be cured by implied consent, procedural participation, or panel-based appointments unless there is an express written waiver after disputes arise. A Division Bench of Justices C. Hari Shankar and Om Prakash Shukla dismissed the appeals filed by Titagarh Rail Systems Limited and affirmed the judgment of the Single Judge setting aside the arbitral award. It held:
“In fact, the situation which exists in the present case is that the very invocation of the procedure, envisaged in the contract between the parties as being applicable in a case in which Section 12(5) stood waived, was itself illegal. That procedure applies only where there is waiver of the applicability of Section 12(5). Inasmuch as there was no such waiver in the present case, the procedure itself would not apply. By erroneously invoking the procedure which applies where Section 12(5) has been waived, waiver of Section 12(5) cannot be implied.”
Case Title : Indian Sugar Exim Corporation Limited Versus Sakuma Exports Limited
Case Number : O.M.P. (COMM) 416/2023 & I.A. 19782/2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 404
The Delhi High Court has recently set aside an arbitral award passed against Indian Sugar Exim Corporation Ltd., holding that damages under Section 73 of the Indian Contract Act cannot be awarded on mere guesswork in the absence of proof of actual loss. Justice Avneesh Jhingan held that “the law is well settled that for claiming damages under Section 73 of the Contract Act, actual loss or damage suffered is to be proved and only in cases where such proof is not possible, a honest genuine estimate may be made. In the case in hand, neither the actual damages were proved nor it was a case where damages/loss cannot be proved yet damages were awarded on sheer guesswork. The award of damages is vitiated being contrary to public policy and is set aside."
Delhi High Court Upholds ₹39.6 Lakh Award Against Austin Hyundai In Paint Supply Dispute With Axalta
Case Title : Austin Hyundai (Austin Distributors Pvt Ltd) v. Axalta Coating Systems India Pvt Ltd
Case Number : FAO (COMM) 98/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 387
The Delhi High Court on Saturday upheld an arbitral award directing Austin Hyundai (Austin Distributors Pvt Ltd) to repay Rs 39.6 lakh to Axalta Coating Systems India Pvt Ltd, holding that termination of its Hyundai dealership did not extinguish its obligations under a separate supply agreement. A bench of Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Amit Mahajan held that the supply agreement imposed independent minimum purchase obligations and was not contingent on the continuation of the dealership.
“In the present case, the Arbitrator has specifically found that the Supply Agreement constituted an independent commercial arrangement containing express minimum purchase obligations for a defined contractual period and that no contractual term made its continuance contingent upon subsistence of the Hyundai Dealership Agreement. The question whether the two agreements were interdependent was thus examined on the basis of the contractual terms and evidentiary record, and answered by the Arbitrator upon appreciation of facts. No perversity, patent illegality, or jurisdictional infirmity in this finding, duly affirmed by the Court exercising jurisdiction under Section 34, has been demonstrated so as to warrant interference in appellate jurisdiction under Section 37,” the court observed.
Case Title : MSA Global LLC (Oman) v. Engineering Projects (India) Limited
Case Number : O.M.P.(EFA)(COMM.) 4/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 385
The Delhi High Court has refused to enforce a foreign award in favour of MSA Global LLC (Oman) against Engineering Projects (India) Limited. It held that the arbitrator's failure to disclose a prior arbitral association with the MSA's Chairman gave rise to justifiable doubts as to his independence. The Court said this non-disclosure deprived the respondent of the opportunity to assess and challenge such impartiality. It therefore rendered the award contrary to the public policy of India under Section 48(2)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Justice Jasmeet Singh observed, “Thus, the statutory scheme governing arbitration makes it abundantly clear that impartiality and independence of the Arbitrator constitute a golden thread that runs through the entire arbitral framework. Any circumstance which undermines this neutrality strikes at the very legitimacy of the adjudicatory process."
Case Title : Lifewell Diagnostics Private Limited v. Micron Laboratory
Case Number : ARB.P. 36/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 376
The Delhi High Court has held that a dispute resolution clause in an arbitration agreement between Lifewell Diagnostics Private Limited and Micron Laboratory, which states that disputes “may be referred to arbitration”, can constitute a valid and binding arbitration agreement where the same clause prescribes a detailed procedure for arbitration and provides that the arbitral award shall be final and binding.
A single bench of Justice Mini Pushkarna observed that the use of the word “may” does not render the clause non-binding when the clause, read as a whole, reflects a clear intention to arbitrate. “The dispute resolution clause, by elucidating the detailed procedure for conduct of arbitration and using the terminology that, 'arbitration shall be conducted as follows', as also by stipulating the governing law and making the arbitration award final and binding on the parties, strongly points towards the unambiguous intention of the parties to refer the disputes to arbitration.”
Delhi High Court Upholds Arbitral Award Directing Flexing It To Convert CCDs Into Equity
Case Title : Flexing It Services Private Limited & Anr. v. Colvyn James Harris
Case Number : O.M.P. (COMM) 111/2025 & OMP (ENF.) (COMM.) 101/2025
CITATION :2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 391
The Delhi High Court recently upheld an arbitral award directing Flexing It Services Private Limited to convert investor Colvyn James Harris's compulsorily convertible debentures into equity equivalent to 2% of the company's shareholding as on January 31, 2017. It also upheld the arbitral finding that repeated acknowledgments of liability in correspondence extended the limitation period.
Declining to set aside the award in a challenge under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the Court allowed enforcement proceedings to continue.
Referring to the arbitral tribunal's findings on limitation, the court noted that the tribunal had found that the correspondence “clearly show repeated acknowledgements of the 1st Respondent's obligation to convert the Claimant's CCDs in accordance with the provision of the Agreement.”
The court further noted the tribunal's finding that “a fresh period of limitation would be deemed to have commenced from the date of each such acknowledgement.”
Delhi High Court Partly Sets Aside Arbitral Award For Denying Pre-Reference Interest Without Reasons
Case Title : Panchanan International Private Limited v. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited
Case Number : O.M.P. (COMM) 8/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 377
The Delhi High Court has held that where an arbitrator, despite finding prolonged and unjustified delay by an insurer in settling a claim, fails to provide reasons as mandated under Section 31(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for denying pre-reference interest, the award suffers from patent illegality and is liable to be set aside.
Partly setting aside an award in a dispute between Panchanan International Private Limited and the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, a Bench of Justice Mini Pushkarna observed, “Once the learned Arbitrator found the respondent responsible for prolonged and unjustified delay, denial of interest for pre-reference period required cogent reasons, which are entirely absent in the impugned Arbitral Award.”
Case Title : JLT Energy 9 SAS v. Hindustan Cleanenergy Limited & Ors.
Case Number : FAO(OS)(COMM) 14/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 378 To
The Delhi High Court has held that where an agreement has, prima facie, ceased to subsist, courts cannot grant interim relief under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in a manner that effectively revives such a contract. Dismissing an appeal filed by JLT Energy 9 SAS, a Division Bench of Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Amit Mahajan upheld a Single Judge's refusal to restrain Hindustan Cleanenergy Limited from creating third-party rights in its solar project assets.
“Where, upon a prima facie examination of the contractual framework and the material placed on record, the Court arrives at the conclusion that the underlying Agreement has ceased to subsist, the jurisdiction under Section 9 cannot be invoked to grant interim relief so as to resurrect or revive a terminated contract. Grant of interim protection in such circumstances would amount to granting final relief in the guise of an interim measure and would run contrary to the settled principles governing Section 9,” the Bench observed.
Case Title : M/s Splendor Landbase Limited v. M/s NTT Data Global Delivery Services Private Limited
Case Number : O.M.P. (COMM) 479/2025, 480/2025, 481/2025, 483/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 384
The Delhi High Court has recently held that parties can challenge arbitral awards covering both claims and counterclaims through a composite petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, rejecting an objection that separate petitions were required as they amounted to distinct “decrees”. Emphasising that Section 36(1), which states that an arbitral award “shall be enforced as if it were a decree of the court,” is confined to the stage of enforcement, the Court observed: "In the present context, the fiction operates only to enable the enforcement and execution of an arbitral award by borrowing the procedural machinery of the CPC. It does not equate an arbitral award to a decree for all purposes, nor does it import the entire procedural regime of the CPC into arbitral proceedings. Significantly, it does not govern or alter the manner in which an arbitral award may be challenged, which remains exclusively regulated by Sections 34 and 37 of the A&C Act".
Delhi High Court Sets Aside Arbitral Award For Refusal To Examine Key Witnesses Who Left Employment
Case Title : Sujit Kumar Jaiswal v. The Managing Director, Dalmia Research International Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : O.M.P. 110/2009
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 339
The Delhi High Court on 1 April held that refusing to examine key witnesses solely because they were no longer employees of the company undermines a fair arbitral hearing, particularly when those witnesses were directly involved in the transaction. Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar set aside an arbitral award in a dispute between Sujit Kumar Jaiswal and Dalmia Research International Pvt. Ltd., holding that by selectively accepting the company's version, the Tribunal deprived him of a fair opportunity to prove his case, contrary to Section 18 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which mandates equal treatment.
The Court stated: “In the opinion of this Court, the mere fact that such individuals were no longer in the employment of the Respondent could not have constituted a valid ground for refusing their examination, particularly when their testimony had a direct bearing on the authenticity of the disputed Agreement.
Delhi HC Upholds ₹7.14 Crore Arbitral Award In Favour Of Corporate Infotech Against NTRO
Case Title : National Technical Research Organisation v. M/s Corporate Infotech Private Limited
Case Number : O.M.P. (COMM) 378/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 340
The Delhi High Court on 1 April, held that Corporate Infotech Private Limited (CIPL) is entitled to the balance payment of Rs. 7,14,61,511 from the National Technical Research Organisation (NTRO) and upheld the arbitral award in its favour in a dispute over a secure intranet network project. A Bench of Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar observed that liquidated damages could not be imposed and final payments could not be withheld where delays were attributable to both parties and the system had already been taken over for operational use. He observed:
“Having rejected the claim for levy of LD and having found no established loss or subsisting breach, justifying retention of the said amount, the learned Tribunal concluded that the Respondent was entitled to the release of the withheld balance consideration. The direction for payment thus flows as a natural consequence of the rejection of LD and the determination of completion of contractual milestones.”
Filing Same Defective Petition Repeatedly To Save Limitation Is Abuse Of Process: Delhi High Court
Case Title : Ms. Stalagmite Infracon Pvt. Ltd. v. Ms. Ashray Homes Build Well Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : O.M.P. (COMM) 367/2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 349
The Delhi High Court has refused to entertain a challenge to an arbitral award, holding that repeatedly re-filing the same defective petition without curing defects, in an attempt to stay within limitations, amounts to a “flagrant misuse and abuse of the process of Court”. A bench of Justice Mini Pushkarna found that Stalagmite Infracon Pvt. Ltd. had filed its Section 34 petition on the last permissible day but continued to re-file the same defective 701-page petition multiple times without curing 19 Registry objections, including even correcting the case category, and only removed defects months later after expanding the filing to 2,622 pages.
“Such conduct of the petitioner constitutes a flagrant misuse and abuse of the process of Court, and demonstrates that the petitioner acted with willful neglect, in reckless disregard to the timelines set out for removing the defects and objections, as raised by the Registry of this Court.”
Case Title : Union of India vs M/s Varindera Constructions Ltd.
Case Number : O.M.P. (COMM) 73/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 350
The Delhi High Court has observed that the time limit for arbitrators to pass awards cannot be treated as a rigid ground to invalidate arbitral proceedings and dismissed a challenge to an arbitral award on the ground that the arbitrator's mandate had expired. “The statutory architecture of Section 29A of the A&C Act must therefore be understood not as a rigid mechanism intended to invalidate arbitral proceedings upon a mere lapse of time, but as a supervisory framework designed to ensure timely completion of arbitration while preserving the continuity of the adjudicatory process. The scheme of the provision itself makes this position clear,” the court observed.
Case Title : Amazon Seller Services Pvt Ltd v. Aashirvad Cinemas & Ors.
Case Number : O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 148/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 351
The Delhi High Court has temporarily restrained Aashirvad Cinemas from creating any third-party OTT rights in the upcoming Mohanlal-starrer Malayalam film tentatively titled “Drishyam 3”, granting interim protection to Amazon Seller Services Pvt. Ltd. in an arbitration dispute. Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar held that Amazon had made out a case for ad-interim relief and barred the producers, till the next hearing, from “creating or otherwise dealing with any third-party rights in respect of the non-linear internet-based rights” in the film, including its Malayalam version, dubbed versions, and a potential Hindi remake.
“Keeping in view the submissions advanced by the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner at length and in particular, the submissions relating to the triple test, this Court is satisfied that the essential ingredients for grant of interim relief, namely, the existence of a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and likelihood of irreparable harm, stand established in favour of the Petitioner,” the court observed.
Case Title : Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Anil Gupta & Ors.
Case Number : O.M.P. 709/2011
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 356
The Delhi High Court has upheld an arbitral award granting 18% interest on the awarded sum to a contractor, holding that tribunals have wide discretion to fix interest rates under the pre-2015 arbitration law. Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, in a dispute between the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) and Anil Gupta, however, modified the award to direct that interest would run only from July 6, 2008, the date of invocation of arbitration, instead of March 8, 2004.
“Under the statutory framework prevailing prior to the 2015 amendment, Section 31(7)(a) of the the A&C Act, conferred a wide and substantive discretion upon the learned Arbitral Tribunal to award pre-reference as well as pendente lite interest at such rate as it deemed reasonable, unless the parties had expressly agreed otherwise. The provision, in its plain terms, recognised the autonomy of the Arbitral forum to determine the appropriate rate of interest having regard to the factual matrix of the dispute, the conduct of the parties, and the period during which the claimant was deprived of monies found due,” the court observed.
Case Title : Ministry of Health & Family Welfare v. Nagarjuna Construction Ltd.
Case Number : O.M.P. (COMM) 337/2017
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 362
The Delhi High Court has upheld an arbitral award in favour of NCC Limited in a dispute arising from the construction of the medical college and hostel complex at AIIMS Bhopal, finding no ground for interference under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Justice Jasmeet Singh dismissed a petition filed by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare challenging the arbitral award dated 8 May 2017 passed by a sole arbitrator.
"Since, the delays leading to the prolongation of Contract were clearly held attributable to the petitioner, these co-related counter claims flowing from the same cause were rejected by the Arbitrator. This Court finds no reason to interfere with the findings of the Arbitrator regarding attribution of delays in execution of works under the Contract and consequently, the findings of the Arbitrator qua the aforesaid counterclaims also deserves to be upheld", it held.
Seat Of Arbitration Can Be Inferred From Exclusive Jurisdiction Clause: Delhi High Court
Case Title : PIDGE TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD VS SLIKSYNC TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD
Case Number : ARB.P. 390/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 359
The Delhi High Court on 8 April 2026 held that where an agreement provides for arbitration and also contains an exclusive jurisdiction clause, such clause indicates the seat of arbitration even if the agreement does not expressly specify the seat or venue.
A Single-Judge Bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad heard a petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 filed by Pidge Technologies Pvt. Ltd. seeking appointment of an arbitrator in its dispute with Sliksync Technologies Pvt. Ltd. arising out of a Merchant Services Agreement dated 18 September 2024. He held:
“...this Court holds that it has the jurisdiction to entertain the present Petition and appoint an arbitrator. In view of the above, this Court is inclined to appoint a Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes arising between the parties.
Party Cannot Bypass MSMED Act Mechanism To Seek Arbitrator Appointment: Delhi High Court
Case Title : M/s Jubilant Marketing Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s Robbins Tunneling and Trenchless Technology India Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : ARB.P. 2129/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 363
The Delhi High Court on 9 April 2026 held that once a party invokes the dispute resolution mechanism under Section 18 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 and the matter is pending before the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, it cannot bypass that process by approaching the Court under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. A Bench of Justice Mini Pushkarna clarified that even where the Council delays in initiating arbitration, the statutory mechanism under the MSMED Act cannot be sidestepped, as conciliation must first conclude before arbitration can commence. The Court observed:
“Once a party initiates the mechanism envisaged under Section 18 of the MSMED Act, it is bound to adhere to the statutory framework and cannot be permitted to abandon the process midway. Further, the proceedings initiated thereunder must necessarily be taken to their logical conclusion. Such party cannot seek recourse under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act, for appointment of an arbitrator.”
Case Title : Indian Oil Corporation v. Metro Builders (Orissa) Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : O.M.P. (COMM) 246/2016
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 360
The Delhi High Court has set aside an arbitral award, holding that an award lacking intelligible reasoning is liable to be set aside under Section 34, as arbitral awards must satisfy the requirement of reasoned decisions under Section 31(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. A Bench of Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar held that an arbitral award must disclose a clear reasoning process and cannot merely reproduce pleadings or record conclusions without analysis.
On a closer look at the award, the Court found little to indicate any independent application of mind. What was presented as reasoning was, in substance, a reproduction of the parties' pleadings and submissions. The conclusions, it noted, appeared as bare assertions without any adjudicatory reasoning.
Case Title : The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Jindal India Limited
Case Number : O.M.P. (COMM) 182/2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 327
A Rs. 13.31 crore arbitral award in favour of Jindal India Limited has been set aside by the Delhi High Court in a dispute over insurance claims arising from a factory fire, with the court finding that the award went beyond the terms of the contract. Justice Avneesh Jhingan underlined that an arbitrator's authority flows from the agreement between the parties. “The arbitrator cannot go beyond the terms of the contract,” the court said, adding that the methodology adopted to assess loss must conform to the policy.
Case Title : SP Singla Constructions Pvt Ltd v State of Jharkhand & Anr.
Case Number : O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 384/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 330
The Delhi High Court has held that merely filing a petition before a particular court cannot fix jurisdiction under Section 42 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, especially where the petition is withdrawn without any adjudication. Section 42, which centralises all subsequent applications in the first court approached, cannot be invoked in such circumstances as the jurisdiction contemplated must be “real, effective, and legally sustainable”, the court said.
A Single Bench of Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar observed that " Section 42 cannot be construed in a manner that forecloses a party‟s right to raise a fundamental jurisdictional objection, particularly when such objection could never be raised or was never adjudicated upon at any prior stage. Indeed, if this court otherwise lacks jurisdiction in accordance with the settled principles of law, the mere prior filing of a petition under Section 9 or any other petition of application under the A&C Act, without any determination thereon, cannot operate as a binding factor so as to confer jurisdiction by default or estoppel"
Case Title : Talent Unlimited Online Services Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Affle India Ltd.
Case Number : ARB. A. (COMM) 22/2024 & OMP (ENF.) (COMM) 66/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 338
The Delhi High Court on Saturday upheld a SIAC Arbitral Tribunal's order granting interim relief to Affle India Limited, a listed mobile advertising technology company. The order permits inspection of the records and premises of Talent Unlimited Online Services Private Limited, developer of the “Bobble Keyboard” app. The court held that the arbitrator's interpretation of Affle's inspection rights as a shareholder of Talent Unlimited Online Services Private Limited under Clause 3.4 of the Shareholders' Agreement was correct and warranted no interference.
The Bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh, referring to Clause 3.4 of the Shareholders' Agreement, held, “perusal of the clause, reproduced above, clearly shows that the respondent has a right to inspect, which has been so exercised by the respondent and recognised by the Sole Arbitrator. Hence, I am of the view that the findings of the Sole Arbitrator are based on correct interpretation of Clause No. 3.4 of the SHA.”
Bombay High Court
Bombay High Court Upholds UPL Insurance Award, Holds Dispute Is Of 'Quantum' Not 'Liability'
Case Title : United India Insurance Company Limited vs UPL Limited
Case Number : COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION PETITION (L) NO. 10809 OF 2024
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 241
On 22 April, the Bombay High Court held that it would not interfere under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 where an arbitral tribunal adopts a plausible view that a dispute concerns “quantum” rather than “liability”, and upholds an arbitral award arising from an insurance claim under an Industrial All Risk Policy.
Justice Sandeep V. Marne dismissed the petition filed by United India Insurance Company Ltd and upheld the arbitral award in favour of UPL Ltd. He observed:
“The Arbitral Tribunal thus had ample material before it for arriving at the conclusion that the accident was the proximate cause for overhauling of GT Engine. By no stretch of imagination, can it be contended that the findings recorded by the Arbitral Tribunal are so grossly perverse that this Court must invalidate the Award in exercise of powers under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act.”
Arbitrator Need Not Frame Issue Absent Relief Claim In Statement of Claim: Bombay High Court
Case Title : Ambuj Hotel and Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. v Ministry of Railways and Anr.
Case Number : Commercial Arbitration Petition No. 169 of 2026 and 835 of 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 246
The Bombay High Court on 7 April held that an Arbitral Tribunal is not required to frame a specific issue where a party merely raises a grievance in the Statement of Claim (SoC) without seeking any corresponding relief.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh upheld an award in a dispute between the Ministry of Railways and Ambuj Hotel and Real Estate Pvt. Ltd., and dismissed cross-petitions under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. She observed:
“There was no claim raised by the Claimant challenging the imposition of penalities as being improper and seeking refund of the penalty amount. Mere pleadings in the Statement of Claim raising grievance about the penalty imposed without seeking further relief in that respect did not necessitate framing of an issue in that regard.”
Case Title : Airports Authority of India v Satyavan Vishnu Agate & Ors.
Case Number : Review Petition (L) No. 18565 of 2025 and Commercial Arbitration Petition (L) No. 33803 of 2025 and connected petitions
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 247
The Bombay High Court has held that, in a case involving airport premises, the question of whether a dispute can be referred to arbitration requires examination by the court hearing interim relief petitions under the Arbitration Act, especially where a law may bar arbitration.
The court said that while arbitral tribunals usually decide their own jurisdiction, this case is different because the sole arbitrator appointed by consent later resigned, leaving no tribunal in place.
Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan observed that "Ordinarily, even if an arbitration agreement had exclusion or even in the absence of any arbitration agreement, parties to a dispute can always consent to proceed to arbitration, with such consent constituting the arbitration agreement. However, where there is a statutory bar, the question that would arise is whether the parties can at all agree to proceed to arbitration. This would be a neat question of jurisdiction. The question of jurisdiction would ordinarily lie before the Arbitral Tribunal but in Section 9 proceedings, the question of jurisdiction would be considered by the Section 9 Court."
"...since the Arbitral Tribunal came to be appointed by consent under Section 9 of the Act, with no occasion for this Court to consider the issues now raised in the Review Petition, in my opinion, the ends of justice warrant a reconsideration of the original Section 9 Petitions afresh on merits, and a case for review on merits has been made out.", it added.
Case Title : Veeramaneni Venugopalrao and Ors. Versus Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd.
Case Number : INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 6578 OF 2025 IN ARBITRATION PETITION NO.166 of 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 234
The Bombay High Court has reiterated that an arbitral award dispatched to a party's last known address amounts to valid service in law, even if the party does not actually receive it, and the limitation to challenge the award begins from the date of attempted delivery.
Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh held that, “Once the signed copy of the Award is shown to have been dispatched to the last known address of the Applicants, the same is sufficient to raise the deeming fiction under Section 3(2) and to draw an inference under Section 114 of Evidence Act,” rejecting the contention that limitation had not commenced due to non-receipt.
The ruling came in a challenge by the partners of Akshar Enterprises to an arbitral award dated December 20, 2021, rendered under the Mumbai Centre for International Arbitration in favour of Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd.
Statutory Bar On Arbitrability Can Be Examined While Granting Interim Relief: Bombay High Court
Case Title : Airports Authority Of India Versus Satyavan Vishnu Agate, Sole Proprietor Of M/S Vision Enterprises
Case Number : : Review Petition (L) No. 18565 Of 2025 In Commercial Arbitration Petition No. 219 Of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 215
The Bombay High Court on 16 April held that courts can examine arbitrability, including statutory bars, while deciding petitions under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, especially where no Arbitral Tribunal exists. Section 9 allows a Court to grant interim protection measures before, during, or after arbitral proceedings to safeguard the subject matter of the dispute. A Bench of Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan allowed the review petitions filed by the Airports Authority of India (AAI) and restored the Section 9 petitions for fresh adjudication, noting that it had withdrawn its earlier consent to arbitration on the ground that it violated the Airports Authority of India Act, 1994. He held:
“However, where there is a statutory bar, the question that would arise is whether the parties can at all agree to proceed to arbitration. This would be a neat question of jurisdiction. The question of jurisdiction would ordinarily lie before the Arbitral Tribunal but in Section 9 proceedings, the question of jurisdiction would be considered by the Section 9 Court.”
Stockbroker Cannot 'Wriggle Out' Of Liability For Agent's Unauthorized Acts: Bombay High Court
Case Title : IIFL Capital Services Limited v. Sukhadeo Gorakha Bhil
Case Number : Arbitration Appeal No. 128 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 225
The Bombay High Court on 21 April, held that a stockbroker remains liable for unauthorised and fraudulent trades executed by its sub-brokers and agents, particularly where such acts arise in the course of agency and result in abnormal brokerage gains at the client's expense. Justice Arun R. Pedneker upheld the arbitral award directing IIFL Capital Services Limited to pay Rs. 14.37 lakh to investor Sukhadeo Gorakha Bhil and dismissed the appeal filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. He observed:
“The stock broker cannot wriggle out of the Alliance Partners actions, which are in the course of his agency, although the Broker / Appellant may have not permitted the Alliance Partner to indulge into fraudulent trades. The actions of the Alliance Partner has resulted in the profits to Stock Broker and the Broker is liable for the act of Alliance Partner and his servants.”
Bombay High Court Sets Aside Arbitral Award Against MSRDC In Toll Collection Dispute
Case Title : Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation Ltd. v. Jai Laxmi Constructions Engineers and Contractors
Case Number : Commercial Arbitration Petition No. 899 of 2018
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 213
The Bombay High Court has recently set aside an arbitral award in a dispute between Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation Ltd. (MSRDC) and Jai Laxmi Constructions Engineers and Contractors, holding that no arbitration agreement existed governing disputes under the Toll Collection Agreement and that an arbitration clause contained in a separate lender-related agreement could not be invoked for such disputes.
A bench of Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan observed, “Therefore, the main test of Section 7(1) has not been met by the arbitration clause in the Replacement Agreement when applied to disputes raised entirely under the Toll Collection Agreement. On the disputes under the Toll Collection Agreement, the parties have agreed that Jai Laxmi would have resort to the Principal Civil Court at Mumbai."
Case Title : State of Goa, Rep. By Executive Engineer, Public Works Department Versus M/s. U. P. State Bridge Corporation Ltd.
Case Number : APPEAL UNDER ARBITRATION ACT NO. 6 OF 2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 141
The Goa Bench of the Bombay High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by the State of Goa challenging an arbitral award passed in favor of U.P. State Bridge Corporation Ltd., holding that an arbitral award could not be set aside merely on the ground that one of the arbitrators nominated by the contractor had served as the Managing Director and consultant of the corporation. Justice Suman Shyam further observed that in the absence of material demonstrating actual bias or likelihood of bias, an arbitral award cannot be set aside.
"Therefore, in the absence of any material brought on record to demonstrate bias-ness, the mere fact that a former employee of the Corporation has been nominated as an Arbitrator, by itself, would not be enough to raise a justifiable doubt as regards his neutrality so as to vitiate the Award."
Case Title : RKEC Projects Limited v. Maharashtra Maritime Board & Anr.
Case Number : Commercial Arbitration Petition (L) No. 7085 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 201
The Bombay High Court has recently declined to restrain the invocation and encashment of bank guarantees worth Rs 31.86 crore in a dispute between RKEC Projects Limited and the Maharashtra Maritime Board over the construction of a passenger jetty and terminal near the Gateway of India in Mumbai. The ruling came on a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which allows courts to grant temporary protection until disputes are decided through arbitration, before Justice Sandeep V. Marne.
At the heart of the decision was a settled principle. Bank guarantees stand on their own footing, and courts do not ordinarily interfere. “It is only in exceptional and rare cases, where there is an element of egregious fraud or where the case involves irretrievable injury or irretrievable injustice or where there are special equities, that the court would be justified in making interim order restraining encashment of bank guarantee,” the Court observed.
Appeal Not Maintainable Against Arbitral Tribunal's Impleadment Order: Bombay High Court
Case Title : Mayank J. Shah And Ors. Versus Raju V. Shah And Ors.
Case Number : COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 409 OF 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 216
The Bombay High Court on 8 April, held that an order allowing impleadment of parties cannot be challenged in appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 merely because the Arbitral Tribunal passed it under Section 17, which empowers the Tribunal to issue interim and procedural orders during arbitration to manage the proceedings and grant temporary reliefs. A Bench of Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan clarified that Section 37 contains an exhaustive list of appealable orders, and procedural directions such as joinder of parties do not fall within its scope. He observed:
“Ordinarily, an order of impleadment which is part and parcel of procedural directions and indeed even affecting substantive rights of the parties owing to joinder being allowed, would not be appealable under Section 37(2)(b) of the Act. The jurisdiction under Section 37 is one that entails an exhaustive listing of permissible appeals, which are a creature of statute. Impleadment of a party would not constitute an interlocutory protective measure as envisaged under Section 17 of the Act.”
Arbitrator Must Follow Fair, Evidence-Based Process Even In Ex-Parte Proceedings: Bombay High Court
Case Title : Shinde & Sons v. Godawari Marathwada Irrigation Development Corporation & Anr.
Case Number : Commercial Arbitration Appeal No. 1 of 2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 208
On 15 April, the Bombay High Court held that even in ex-parte proceedings, an arbitrator must ensure a fair, evidence-based and unbiased process in terms of Section 25 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and cannot treat claims as established merely because the other side remains absent. A Division Bench of Justices Arun R. Pedneker and Vaishali Patil Jadhav dismissed the appeal filed by Shinde & Sons and upheld the order of the District Judge at Beed setting aside the arbitral award under Section 34 of the Act. It held:
“It was necessary for the arbitrator to follow the procedure under Section 25 of the Arbitration Act. Although reference is made to Section 25 of the Act in the award, the evidence in support of the claims appears to be lacking and the claims cannot be said to be established.”
Case Title : Shri Mahavir Developers & 10 Ors. Versus Shri Mahavir Jaina Vidyalaya & 6 Ors.
Case Number : COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION PETITION NO.128 OF 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 185
The Bombay High Court has recently held that a developer cannot avoid arbitration by claiming tenancy protection under the Small Causes Courts Act when its right to use the property is only incidental to a development agreement.
Upholding the arbitral award, the court rejected the developer's objection that the dispute was not arbitrable on the ground that it involved eviction of a licensee, which would fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Small Causes Court under the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act (PSCC Act). “The objection on arbitrability on the ground of exclusive jurisdiction under the PSCC Act is untenable since the license granted to the Developer was incidental to the development rights conferred on the Developer. Once such development rights are not held as being amenable to enforcement by way of specific relief, the license would also become irrelevant,” the court observed.
Case Title : INFRA Poonam Developers LLP v. Jasbir Singh & Ors.
Case Number : Arbitration Application (L) No. 37441 of 2025 with Interim Application (L) No. 11418 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 187
The Bombay High Court has condoned a 258-day delay in filing a plea for appointment of an arbitrator, holding that efforts taken by a developer to prevent acquisition of a redevelopment project by the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA) constituted sufficient and exceptional cause. A bench of Justice Sandeep V. Marne allowed INFRA Poonam Developers LLP to initiate arbitration against Jasbir Singh and other partners, observing that the cause to seek arbitration arose only after MHADA acquired the property and the firm lost possession.
The court noted: "The Applicant was thus required to take several steps for ensuring preservation of the subject matter of arbitration, before it could seek adjudication of disputes with other partners of the Firm."
Arbitrator Under MSCS Act Can Presume Membership If Not Specifically Denied: Bombay High Court
Case Title : Yash Multi State Rural Cooperative Credit Society Ltd. v. Bharat Arjundas Narang and Others
Case Number : Arbitration Appeal No. 23 Of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 193
The Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court on 30 March, held that membership of a cooperative society is a jurisdictional fact for invoking arbitration under Section 84 of the Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act (MSCS Act). However, if such membership is not specifically denied, the arbitrator may presume its existence from the material on record. Justice Arun R. Pedneker allowed the appeal filed by Yash Multi State Rural Co-operative Credit Society Ltd. (the Society) and set aside the order of the Principal District Judge, Ahmednagar, which had interfered with the arbitral award, restoring the award in favour of the Society. He held:
“Ordinarily the Society grants loans only to members of the Society. Accordingly, no issue is framed as regards whether the borrowers are the members of the Society and further no evidence is lead to that effect. In this factual situation the Arbitrator had not committed any error.”
Bombay High Court Sets Aside Awards Against Stock Broker For Ignoring Claimant's Statements
Case Title : Kantilal Chhaganlal Securities Pvt. Ltd. Versus Viveka Kumari & Anr
Case Number : Arbitration No. 1057 OF 2014
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 182
The Bombay High Court recently set aside concurrent arbitral awards, holding that ignoring vital evidence, including the claimant's own statements, rendered the findings perverse. Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan heard a petition by Kantilal Chhaganlal Securities Pvt Ltd. The firm had challenged an arbitral award dated October 23, 2013 and an appellate award dated April 8, 2014 in favour of its client.
Setting aside the awards, the court said: “That vital evidence that cuts to the root of the matter is ignored, would lead to patent illegality of an extent that warrants interference. Merely because there are two concurrent findings in the two-tier arbitration that has been conducted, the check and balance under the Section 34 jurisdiction would be no less a check and balance. With the aforesaid observations, the Section 34 Petition is allowed, and the Arbitral Award and the First Award are quashed and set aside."
Case Title : National Highways Authority of India vs Bhaskar Ninu Zambare & Ors
Case Number : ARBITRATION APPEAL NO. 103 OF 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 174
The Bombay High Court has refused to interfere with enhanced compensation awarded to landowners for acquisition of land for widening National Highway-6 from Jalgaon to the Gujarat boundary, holding that no case was made out for interference under the limited scope of appellate review.
“Considering the totality of the circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that no case is made out for interference with the award passed by the Arbitrator. The Arbitrator has assessed the value of the land considering the relevant material before him and has granted compensation for severance, loss of business, and loss of easementary rights. The same is based on the material on record and is in accordance with the law as noted in the above-referred judgments of this Court. Consequently, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment under Section 34 and the award, passed by the Arbitrator"
Case Title : Nalin Vallabhbhai Patel & Anr. v. Atharva Realtors & Ors.
Case Number : Commercial Arbitration Application No. 430 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 175
The Bombay High Court has observed that while the expiry of an arbitrator's mandate under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 does not automatically terminate arbitral proceedings, a defaulting party cannot be allowed “another bite at the cherry” by seeking appointment of a fresh arbitrator after a court has already refused to extend the mandate due to that party's own negligence.
A single-judge bench of Justice Sandeep V. Marne, while dismissing an application filed by Nalin Vallabhbhai Patel and another against Atharva Realtors and others, held that in the facts of the case, the doors of arbitration stood closed once the Section 29A court had recorded that the claimants had abandoned the proceedings.
The bench observed that “appointment of arbitrator after refusal by Court to extend mandate of previous arbitrator under Section 29A would depend on facts of each case and the question as to 'who is at fault' would provide the key for solving the problem. If parties are responsible for delay and Court has refused to extend the mandate on account of conduct of parties, the arbitral proceedings will have to be treated as having been terminated. This is necessary because if the arbitral proceedings are not treated to have been terminated, parties at fault would get another bite at the cherry by seeking appointment of another arbitrator.”
Case Title : Trading and Agency Services Limited WLL (Qatar) v Ion Exchange (India) Limited
Case Number : Commercial Arbitration Petition No. 214 Of 2024 With Interim Application (L) No. 20707 Of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 322
The Bombay High Court on 17 March held that the “public policy of India” ground under Section 48 of the Arbitration Act, 1996 (the Act), cannot be used to apply Indian legal principles to challenge enforcement of a foreign arbitral award arising from a foreign-law governed contract. Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan allowed a petition filed by Trading and Agency Services Limited (TASL), a Qatari company, to enforce a foreign arbitral award of USD 978,300 against Ion Exchange (India) Limited.
The Court observed: “While Indian law principles can be sought to be imported on what was a Qatari-law governed contract, it would not be possible to simply apply Indian law as if the parties' conscious choice of law is to be ignored, just when it comes to enforcement of the Subject Award.”
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Case Title : NHAI v Gayatri Devi and Others
Case Number : Arbitration Appeals 269-275 of 2023
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (MP) 30
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has upheld a district court's decision to send a land compensation dispute back to an arbitrator after finding that the arbitrator ignored that the land had already been declared urban before fixing compensation.
“The power of remand as held by the constitution bench permits the Court to send the award to the Tribunal for reconsideration of specific aspects and it is not an open ended process rather it is a limited power confined to limited circumstances and issues identified by the Court.” the court said.
Even Consent Cannot Cure Lack of Jurisdiction In HC Appointment Of Arbitrator In ICA: MP High Court
Case Title : The State Of Madhya Pradesh Versus M/S SMEC International Pvt. Ltd
Case Number : Arbitration Appeal No. 266 Of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (MP) 22
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that an arbitrator appointed by a High Court in an international commercial arbitration has no authority in law to decide the dispute, and any award passed in such proceedings is void. A bench of Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Pradeep Mittal said, “The conjoint reading of Section 11(6) and Section 11(12)(a), ACA makes it abundantly clear that the power to appoint an arbitrator in an ICA lies exclusively with the Supreme Court. The High Court has no jurisdiction to appoint an arbitrator in an international commercial arbitration, and such power is in the exclusive domain of the Supreme Court. The aforesaid provisions are non-derogable and any order passed by the High Court appointing an arbitrator in ICA suffers from complete lack of jurisdiction and is a nullity in law.”
Case Title : Helwett Packard Enterprise India Private Limited v Bhopal Smart City Development Corporation Limited
Case Number : AC No. 150 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (MP) 21
The Madhya Pradesh High Court on 31 March held that every arbitrator in a tribunal, including party-appointed arbitrators, must remain independent and impartial under the Seventh Schedule and Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Justice Vivek Jain appointed Justice K.K. Lahoti as the sole arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between Hewlett Packard Enterprise India Private Limited (HP/petitioner) and Bhopal Smart City Development Corporation Limited (BSCC/respondent), after the latter nominated the Commissioner, Urban Administration and Development Department, Madhya Pradesh (UADD).
The Bench held: “The respondents could have appointed some other independent and impartial person as their arbitrator because independence and impartiality is not required only of third arbitrator in a three members arbitral tribunal, but each and every arbitrator needs to be independent and impartial.”
Case Title : LCC Projects Pvt Ltd v. Madhya Pradesh Jal Nigam Maryadit & Ors.
Case Number : Arbitration Revision Nos. 68 of 2025 & 69 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (MP) 17
The Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur has recently held that contractors can approach the arbitration tribunal within three years if a dispute arises while a government works contract is still ongoing, even though the law also prescribes a one-year limitation after the final authority's decision. A Division Bench of Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Pradeep Mittal set aside an order of the M.P. Arbitration Tribunal, which had dismissed a plea filed by LCC Projects Pvt. Ltd. against Madhya Pradesh Jal Nigam Maryadit as time-barred.
Clarifying the position under the Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983, the court said held: “It is correct that under subsection (1) of section 7-B, for filing a reference before the Tribunal the period of limitation is one year from the date of communication of the decision by the final authority. Admittedly, the petitioner has filed a reference beyond the period of one year on 02.9.2024, as it should have been filed on or before 18.8.2024. But, section 7(2-A) is a non obstante clause, meaning thereby, despite the one year period of limitation prescribed under section 7-B(1) in a case where the contract is ongoing or pending, and any dispute arises, the contractor can approach the Tribunal by way of reference within a period of 03 years"
Case Title : PerkinElmer US LLC v. Ilishan Biotech Private Limited (F/K/A Biotech International)
Case Number : MCC No. 3164 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (MP) 18
The Madhya Pradesh High Court at Indore has held that apostilled arbitral award copies (documents certified as genuine in countries with which India has reciprocal recognition of such authentication) are valid for enforcement where their authenticity is undisputed, while declaring a Texas-seated foreign award of USD 623,169.37 in favour of PerkinElmer US LLC enforceable. Rejecting objections by Ilishan Biotech Private Limited on non-production of original documents, a single-judge bench of Justice Pawan Kumar Dwivedi said, “As India and the United State of America are signatories to the Hague Apostille Convention thus, there is reciprocity between the two countries regarding notarial acts of Notaries. This facts is clear from the memorandum of Ministry of External Affairs dated 18.11.2020 itself.”
It added, “Thus, as Section 14 only requires reciprocal arrangements and as in the present case, India and USA being signatories of the Hague Apostille Convention, in the considered view of this Court, the reciprocity as required under Section 14 of the Notaries Act, 1952 is very much there.”
Case Title : Shri Chain Perfumery Works v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : Writ Appeal No. 1997 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (MP) 2
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that where a party, despite being granted an opportunity, fails to file a reply and declines to participate in conciliation proceedings, the MSME Facilitation Council is justified in proceeding to arbitration without issuing a separate notice. A Division Bench of Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Pradeep Mittal observed, “Once the petitioner had declared that he was interested in participating in the conciliation proceedings, the Facilitation Council had no option but to proceed to decide the dispute by way of arbitration, for which no separate notice was liable to be issued. The petitioner was required to file a reply to the statement of claim submitted by the respondent. Even otherwise, this Court had granted seven days' time to file a reply, failing which, the Facilitation Council shall proceed for arbitration and the said order was passed at the instance of the appellant/petitioner.”
Madras High Court
Madras High Court Sets Aside Rental Loss In Arbitral Award Against VLCC In Lease Dispute
Case Title VLCC Health Care Limited v. Veeram Raja and Ors
Case Number CMA No. 367 of 2023 in CMP No. 3102 of 2023
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 112
The Madras High Court has partly allowed an appeal filed by VLCC Health Care Limited, setting aside the rental loss component of an arbitral award while upholding damages and arrears of rent against the company.
The court held that once possession of the premises had been handed over, a claim for rental loss for the subsequent period was unsustainable.
A Division Bench of Justices P. Velmurugan and K. Govindarajan Thilakavadi was dealing with an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, challenging an order of the Principal District Judge, Coimbatore, which had confirmed an arbitral award dated February 21, 2015.
Case Title : Sri Swarna and Co. v Chief Engineer (Construction), Southern Railways
Case Number : O.S.A.Nos.108, 109, 110 and 111 of 2020
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 108
The Madras High Court recently upheld the partial setting aside of arbitral awards in a railway contracts dispute, holding that claims granted by an arbitral tribunal contrary to express contractual prohibitions under the General Conditions of Contract (GCC) are unsustainable. The court also observed that, in the facts of the case, the contractor's issuance of a “No Claim Certificate” and the agreed GCC clauses barred it from raising further claims against the Railways.
A Division Bench of Justices P. Velmurugan and K. Govindarajan Thilakavadi dismissed appeals filed by Sri Swarna and Co. (SSC), affirming a December 10, 2019 order of a Single Judge, which had partly set aside four arbitral awards arising out of disputes relating to railway track doubling works.
Madras High Court Dismisses Appeal Against Execution Order After Arbitral Award Attains Finality
Case Title : Jumbo World Holdings Ltd. & Anr. v. Embassy Property Development Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : OSA (CAD) No. 6 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 97
After Jumbo World Holdings Ltd. and Dandavati Investments and Trading Company Pvt. Ltd. failed in their challenge to an arbitral award up to the Supreme Court, the Madras High Court has refused to entertain their appeal against an execution order passed in proceedings to give effect to the award, holding that such orders are not appealable under the statutory framework.
“In the instant case, the order appealed is against the directions given in an Execution Petition. The Award had been challenged under Section 34 of the Act and the challenge had failed. It was further challenged under Section 37 of the Act and that challenge had also failed. The further appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court had also failed. The appellants will have to abide by the Rule of Law at some point of time. No special leverage could be granted to them to evade the Award granted by the Arbitral Tribunal, confirmed by the learned Single Judge, by the Division Bench and by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Award has become final. The directions given by the learned Single Judge are not appealable in nature as they cannot be termed as a decree of the Court. They are not orders which fall under Order XLIII of the Code of Civil Procedure. ”, the bench observed.
Case Title : Unicon Engineers v. M/s Super Steam Boiler Engineers Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : OSA (CAD) No. 142 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 93
Reiterating that the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is a self-contained code, the Madras High Court has dismissed a Letters Patent appeal against a Single Judge's order directing a 75% pre-deposit in a challenge to an MSME arbitral award. A Division Bench of Justices C.V. Karthikeyan and K. Kumaresh Babu held, “The order of the learned Single Judge does not fall under the ambit of Order XLIII of the Code of Civil Procedure and therefore, this appeal filed under the Letters Patent would not lie.”
Emphasising the restrictive nature of appellate remedies, the Court observed that where a special statute provides a self-contained framework, “the applicability of the general law procedure would be impliedly excluded.”
Case Title : OPG Power Generation Private Ltd. v. Shree Karthik Papers Ltd.
Case Number : OSA No. 301 of 2020
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 314
The Madras High Court on 6 March, held that an arbitral award granting damages for non-supply of electricity cannot be interfered with when the supplier itself commits the initial breach of the power supply agreement by unilaterally revising the tariff and stopping supply without following the contractual procedure. A Division Bench of Justices C.V. Karthikeyan and K. Kumaresh Babu dismissed an appeal filed by OPG Power Generation Pvt Ltd (OPG) under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act and upheld the arbitral award as well as the order of the Single Judge confirming the award. The judges held:
“Both the arbitrator and the learned Single Judge had examined who was first in breach of the agreement and had come to an uniform conclusion that it was the appellant, who had initially raised the tariff and later exercising right under Clause 11.8 had stopped supply. The appellant claimed later that they had stopped supply only because the respondent failed to pay the bill within the time period stipulated. But again, even if the bill had not been paid within the time, the appellant could not and should not have stopped supply of power without following the guidelines under clause 11.4 of the agreement.”
Award Granting Statutorily Barred Relief Suffers From Patent Illegality: Madras High Court
Case Title : Southern Railway v. Mrs. G. Bharathi
Case Number : O.S.A. No. 49 of 2021
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 91
The Madras High Court on 18 March held that determining whether an arbitral award grants relief barred by law or beyond the contract is a question of legality, not of re-examining evidence. Courts can intervene under Section 34(2A) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 only if the award shows patent illegality. A Division Bench of Justice P. Velmurugan and Justice K. Govindarajan Thilakavadi allowed Southern Railway's appeal and set aside the arbitral award that directed continuation and renewal of a railway catering licence granted to Mrs. G. Bharathi.
It observed: “In the present case, the direction issued by the arbitral tribunal compelling continuation of the licence and granting renewal of a determinable contract is contrary to Section 14(d) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.”
Himachal Pradesh High Court
Case Title : J.K. Exim Private Limited v. Director of Women and Child Development, H.P. & Anr.
Case Number : Arbitration Appeal No. 13 of 2020
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (HP) 13
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has set aside a Single Judge's order modifying an arbitral award in a dispute over the supply of Anganwadi kits, holding that the judgment was incomprehensible and lacked clear reasoning. The court remanded the matter for fresh adjudication. The Bench of Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Justice Bipin Chander Negi emphasised the need for clarity in judicial writing.
It observed, “A judgment culminates in a conclusion. Its contents represent the basis for the conclusion. All conclusions should be supported by reasoning duly recorded. The reasons in the judgment should be intelligible and logical. The purpose of judicial writing is not to confuse or confound. The judgment must make sense to those whose lives and affairs are affected by the outcome of the case. Judgment of the High Court serve as precedents to guide future benches. This Court in the present appeal and the counsels representing the respective parties have found it difficult to navigate through the incomprehensible language in the impugned judgment.”
Case Title : Chief Engineer, HP PWD National Highway Division, Shimla v. M/s Ceigall India Limited
Case Number : CARAP(M) No. 15 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (HP) 11
The Himachal Pradesh High Court held on 19 March that a party cannot be held responsible for delay in filing objections where the arbitral tribunal fails to furnish a signed copy of its award, despite specific requests. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, while condoning a 16-day delay in filing objections in the dispute between the Chief Engineer, HP PWD National Highway Division, Shimla, and Ceigall India Limited, observed:
"This Court is of the considered view that the learned Arbitral Tribunal should have ensured that a signed copy of the Award was provided to the applicant, which it failed to do...in the peculiar facts of this case, it cannot be said that the filing of the objections by the applicant beyond three months is completely attributable to the negligence on the part of the applicant."
Telangana High Court
Case Title: Ramky Elsmex Hyderabad Ring Road Limited v. Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority & Ors.
Case Number: Commercial Court Appeal No. 35 of 2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(TEL) 19
The Telangana High Court has set aside a Commercial Court order that annulled a Rs. 168.36 crore arbitral award against the Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority and others in a contract dispute with Ramky Elsmex Hyderabad Ring Road Limited.
The court held that the consensual appointment of a presiding arbitrator is not rendered invalid only because an application for such appointment was pending before the court.
Rejecting the Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority's contention that the arbitral tribunal was improperly constituted on this ground, the court held: “We are of the considered view that the respondents' argument runs contrary to the leitmotif of the A&C Act which roots for party autonomy. The essence of the respondents' argument is that the Court can force its choice of presiding arbitrator on the party overriding a consensus arrived between the parties or the arbitrators, once an application under section 11(6) is filed in Court. Such a construction is anathema to the A&C Act which gives primacy to the intention of parties at every stage of the arbitration process. There is nothing on record to suggest that the nominee arbitrators were at variance with regard to the appointment/selection of the presiding arbitrator"
75% Pre-Deposit Under MSMED Act Mandatory For Challenging Arbitral Award: Telangana High Court
Case Title : M/s Kendriya Bhandar v. Atlantis Agritech Private Limited and Ors
Case Number : Civil Revision Petition No. 503 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(TEL) 17
The Telangana High Court on 15 April 2026 held that a buyer cannot circumvent the mandatory 75% pre-deposit requirement under Section 19 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (MSME Act) to challenge an arbitral award. A Division Bench of Justices Moushumi Bhattacharya and Gadi Praveen Kumar dismissed a Civil Revision Petition filed by Kendriya Bhandar, which sought exemption from depositing 75% of the awarded amount while challenging an award passed by the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council. It held:
“Section 19 makes it clear that the deposit requirement of 75% must be paid by all other entities, except the Supplier, for any application for setting aside any Award by the Facilitation Council. Section 19 further contains an express bar on the Court from entertaining any application challenging the Award/Decree passed by the Council unless the applicant deposits 75% of the awarded amount/Decree.”
Case Title : M/s Galore Infotech Pvt. Ltd v. M/s SEW Krishnagar Bahrampore Highways Ltd
Case Number : Arbitration Application No. 161 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(TEL) 11
The Telangana High Court has recently held that Section 14 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (provision for termination of an arbitrator's mandate) is a narrow provision and cannot be used to indirectly challenge the validity of an arbitrator's appointment once that issue has attained finality. Justice K. Lakshman dismissed an application filed by Galore Infratech Pvt. Ltd. under Sections 14, 15 and 11 of the Act. The company had sought termination of the arbitrator's mandate and appointment of an independent arbitrator in its dispute with SEW Krishnagar Bahrampore Highways Ltd.
Refusing the plea, the court observed, “Section 14 of the Act provides for termination of the mandate of an arbitrator where he becomes de jure or de facto unable to perform his functions or fails to act without undue delay. The scope of the provision is narrow and is confined to situations where the arbitrator suffers from a legal or factual incapacity which renders continuation of the mandate impossible. The provision cannot be invoked as a substitute for challenging the validity of the appointment itself”
Case Title : Union of India v. Krishnapatnam Railway Company Limited and Anr
Case Number : Commercial Court Appeal No. 7 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(TEL) 14
The Telangana High Court has recently held that the Railways' SCR treasury account is not immune from attachment in execution proceedings in their entirety and that only specifically identifiable exempt amounts can be protected. Clarifying that exemptions under Section 60 of the Civil Procedure Code apply only to identifiable portions of funds and not entire accounts, the Court said, “It is also pertinent to note that the proviso to section 60(1) of the CPC carve-out exceptions from attachment in respect of 'the following particulars' which indicates that only certain specified amounts are immune from attachment, as opposed to the entire account itself. The appellant, however, seeks to take advantage of the proviso to section 60(1) of the C.P.C. in respect of the entirety of the Treasury Account", the court observed.
Case Title : Mahbub College (Multi-purpose Higher Secondary School) Society v. Venkat Narayana Educational Society & Ors.
Case Number : C.M.A. Nos. 181, 183, 202 & 252 of 2025; C.R.P. Nos. 3559 & 3560 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (TEL) 8
Education should not be treated as a mere commercial activity driven solely by management interests, the Telangana High Court has observed, emphasising that disputes over control of institutions must not be carried on at the cost of students, teachers, and academic functioning. The observation came while the Court was dealing with a dispute between Mahbub College Society and Venkat Narayana Educational Society (VNES) over the management of institutions including the Swami Vivekananda Institute of Technology (SVIT) and Bolton School.
A division bench of Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice Gadi Praveen Kumar observed, “The Constitution of India, through its fundamental rights and directive principles, guarantees access to health and education, recognizing them as essential pillars for human dignity, and in today's society their effective realization is vital for social progress, equality, and the overall development of the Nation. Therefore, education should not be treated as a mere commercial activity driven by management interests alone.”
Kerala High Court
Case Title : Cherutty Muhammed and Ors v. Sevens Football Association
Case Number : FAO No. 28 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(KER) 70
The Kerala High Court has held that the arbitration clause in the bylaws of the Sevens Football Association does not bar a civil suit in disputes among its members or office bearers, as the clause is limited to disputes between the association's units. A coram of Justice S. Manu made the observation while dismissing an appeal challenging an interim injunction granted by the Additional District Court, Thrissur in a dispute over the use of the name “Sevens Football Association”, its abbreviation “SFA” and logo.
“The arbitration clause in the bylaw speaks about resolution of disputes between various units of the Association by resorting to the procedure under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The arbitration clause is therefore intended only for resolution of disputes between various units and hence in the case of disputes between members of the Association or among its office bearers, arbitration cannot be invoked", the Bench held.
Writ Appeal Not Entertainable When Arbitration Offers Adequate Remedy: Kerala High Court
Case Title : M/s RCC-ACC (JV) v. Board of Major Port Authority and Anr
Case Number : WA No. 834 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(KER) 64
The Kerala High Court on 6 April, declined to entertain a writ appeal arising from termination of a contractual agreement, holding that when efficacious alternative remedies exist under arbitration, the writ court ordinarily refrains from exercising its discretionary jurisdiction. A Division Bench of Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V.M observed: “…having regard to the fact that there are efficacious alternative remedies available where such issues can be more conveniently dealt with and decided, the writ court in appropriate situations decline to exercise this discretionary remedy.”
Jammu & Kashmir & Ladakh High Court
Case Title : Marshal Traders v. J&K Project Construction Corporation & Anr.
Case Number : Arb P. No.31/2023
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (JAM) 14
The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh has reiterated that a plea of limitation cannot by itself block the appointment of an arbitrator unless the claim is clearly time-barred, and that such questions should ordinarily be left to the arbitral tribunal.
A bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar relying on earlier precedents held,
“at the time of considering a petition under Section 11(6) of the Act, unless it is shown that the claim is ex facie time barred or hopelessly time barred, the Court exercising power under Section 11(6) of the Act for appointment of an arbitrator should not reject such application.”
It added that even a slight doubt must favour reference to arbitration:
“If there is slightest doubt with regard to arbitrability of the claim on account of it being time barred, the issue for determination in this regard should be left to the Arbitrator and the Court while exercising its power under Section 11 of Act should not venture to determine the said issue at reference stage.”
Uttarakhand High Court
Case Title : Saravan Singh and Others v. Competent Authority Special Land Acquisition and Another (and connected matters)
Case Number : Writ Petition (MS) No. 534 of 2025 and connected petitions
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(UTT) 5
The Uttarakhand High Court has dismissed a batch of petitions filed by landowners challenging an arbitrator's rejection of their delayed claims for enhanced compensation under the National Highways Act, holding that such challenges cannot be entertained in writ jurisdiction when a statutory remedy is available under the arbitration law.
It noted that a remedy is available under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act to challenge such orders.
A single bench of Justice Rakesh Thapliyal noted that the question whether limitation law applies to such arbitrations is still pending before the Supreme Court, but said this does not justify bypassing the statutory route.
“As pointed out the issue whether Limitation Act would apply or not is still subjudice before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and admittedly, the petitioners have a statutory remedy as provided under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, therefore, taking into consideration the preliminary objection of National Highway Authority, this Court is of the view of that all these writ petitions are not maintainable against the order of Arbitrator / Collector, Udham Singh Nagar.,” the court said.
Karnataka High Court
Case Title : Sarfaraz Munaf v. Siraj Ummer and Ors
Case Number : Commercial Appeal No. 277 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 49
The Karnataka High Court has held that, in the facts of the case, a retired partner can seek to refer a dispute to arbitration to defend himself in a recovery suit, and such a plea cannot be rejected merely because the partnership firm was not registered. A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C.M. Poonacha was considering an appeal challenging an order of the Commercial Court, which had refused to refer the parties to arbitration under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
Dealing with the argument that the Commercial Courts Act overrides the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, the bench held that the contention was “bereft of any merit”. “Arbitration is an alternative dispute resolution mechanism outside the Court's adjudicatory processes. However, the courts have a limited role in arbitration matters. Section 5 of the A&C Act also provides the extent of judicial intervention in matters governed by Part I of the A&C Act." It added: “The CC Act does not oust arbitration, but provides for recourse to the Commercial Division, the Commercial Appellate Division, or the Commercial Court, to the limited extent as contemplated under the A&C Act.”
Mere Allegation Of Fraud Not A Bar To Arbitration: Karnataka High Court
Case Title : Sarfaraz Munaf Partner V/S Mr. Siraj Ummer And Ors.
Case Number : Comap No. 277 Of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 49
The Karnataka High Court on 8 April held that mere allegations of fraud or prior monetary transactions do not oust arbitration where the dispute arises from agreements containing arbitration clauses. A Bench comprising Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C.M. Poonacha held that Courts must refer parties to arbitration under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act unless a party shows that no prima facie arbitration agreement exists. It further noted the interplay with the Commercial Courts Act and stated:
“the CC Act does not oust arbitration, but provides for recourse to the Commercial Division, the Commercial Appellate Division, or the Commercial Court, to the limited extent as contemplated under the A&C Act.”
Disputes Under Subsequent Agreement Without Arbitration Clause Not Arbitrable: Karnataka High Court
Case Title : M. Mallikarjuna & Anr. v. S.P. Sridhara & Ors.
Case Number : MFA No. 2192 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 46
The Karnataka High Court on 2 April, held that an Arbitral Tribunal cannot decide disputes arising from a subsequent agreement that lacks an arbitration clause, nor can it rely on an earlier lapsed agreement whose arbitration clause has ceased to operate. A Bench comprising Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C.M. Poonacha set aside an award that directed execution of a sale deed between M. Mallikarjuna and Smt. Rajeshwari Mallikarjuna (appellants) and S.P. Sridhara and S.P. Muralidhar (respondents).The Court noted:
“There was no arbitration agreement between the parties for referring disputes relating to a period prior to the constitution of the Firm under the partnership deed to arbitration.” It added that the “parties entered into a fresh agreement, which constitutes a novation. The arbitration clause under the earlier agreement is therefore inapplicable. Unless the parties expressly agree otherwise, disputes arising from the novated agreement cannot be referred to arbitration under the earlier clause.”
Case Title : L. Vivekananda v. Handy 101 Solutions and Service Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
Case Number : Commercial Appeal No. 95 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 48
The Karnataka High Court has recently refused to condone a delay of 85 days in filing an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, holding that a busy schedule and travel do not constitute “sufficient cause." Holding that the appeal was barred by limitation and also devoid of merit, the court dismissed the appeal filed by L Vivekananda against Handy 101 Solutions and Service Pvt. Ltd. and its promoter Peter Pushparaj, thereby upholding the Commercial Court's order and the arbitral award, which had rejected Vivekananda's claim for Rs. 35 lakh under a Share Purchase Agreement.
A Division Bench of Justices Anu Sivaraman and Tara Vitasta Ganju observed, “As stated above, I.A.No.1/2023 has been filed by the appellant/claimant, which sets out that the reason for the delay was because the appellant/claimant had a busy schedule and was travelling out of station and could not instruct his counsel." The Court further reiterated that “the expression 'sufficient cause' is not elastic enough to cover long delays, which are beyond the period provided by the appeal provision itself.
Calcutta High Court
Calcutta High Court Orders Enforcement of ₹1.34 Crore Arbitral Award Against L&T
Case Title: UK MECHANICAL ENGINEERING PVT LTD VERSUS LARSEN AND TOUBRO LTD
Case Number : EC-COM 311 OF 2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 97
The Calcutta High Court recently directed enforcement of an arbitral award of about Rs.1.34 crore in favour of UK Mechanical Engineering Pvt. Ltd. against Larsen & Toubro Ltd., holding that the award had attained finality and must be executed as it stands, while declining to grant any enhanced interest on the differential amount.
Justice Gaurang Kanth was dealing with an execution petition filed under Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act seeking enforcement of the arbitral award dated September 19, 2023. The dispute in execution arose over the computation of pre-award interest, which was contested by the award debtor.
“At this stage, it is apposite to note that the present analysis stands fortified by the settled principles governing the scope of execution and the finality of arbitral awards. It is well established that an executing court cannot go behind the decree or award and is bound to enforce it as it stands, without undertaking any exercise of modification, variation, or reinterpretation. This principle applies with equal force to proceedings under Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. It is equally settled that where an arbitral award is not challenged under Section 34, nor subjected to correction or interpretation under Section 33, it attains finality and becomes binding on the parties", it held.
Section 17 Security In Tribunal Domain, Courts To Interfere Only On Perversity: Calcutta High Court
Case Title : Saltee Infrastructure Limited v Shivam Industrial Parks and Estates Ltd
Case Number : APOT 259 OF 2025, GA-COM 2 OF 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 90
The Calcutta High Court on 1 April, held that courts can interfere with interim measures granted by an Arbitral Tribunal under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 only in cases of perversity or arbitrariness and affirmed that the Tribunal retains discretion to determine the quantum of security. A Bench of Justice Gaurang Kanth dismissed the appeal filed by Saltee Infrastructure Limited and upheld the Arbitrator's order dated 16 May 2025 directing furnishing of security, finding no perversity or arbitrariness in the exercise of discretion. It observed:
“The determination of the quantum of security to be furnished, in the context of an application under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, squarely falls within the domain and discretion of the Arbitral Tribunal.”
Case Title : Pho Com Net Pvt Ltd and And v. The Office of the Chief Electoral Officer
Case Number : APO/80/2025 WITH WPO/509/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 94
The Calcutta High Court has refused to interfere with a show-cause notice issued to Pho Com Net Pvt Ltd in connection with a Rs. 25.9 crore contract for providing webcasting and live monitoring services during the 2024 Lok Sabha elections, holding that the dispute raised involves contested factual issues not suited for adjudication in writ jurisdiction. Upholding a Single Judge's decision to dismiss the company's writ petition, a Division Bench of Justices Arijit Banerjee and Apurba Sinha Ray found no infirmity in the ruling, observing that the matter arose out of a contractual dispute requiring factual determination. The court said:
“We therefore do not find any infirmity in the judgment and order under appeal. The learned Single Judge has duly recorded the facts of the case and has applied the correct law in dismissing the writ petition. It is a well-considered and well-reasoned judgment which does not warrant interference.”
Case Title : Mackintosh Burn Limited vs. Damodar Valley Corporation
Case Number : AO-COM 17 of 2025 with IA No. CAN 1 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 95
The Calcutta High Court has dismissed an appeal seeking modification of the conditions of stay of an arbitral award to permit withdrawal of about Rs. 61.20 crore, holding that such orders are not appealable under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act. The court clarified that a post-award application that does not seek protection or preservation of the subject matter cannot be treated as an interim measure appealable.
Rejecting Mackintosh Burn Limited's bid to withdraw about Rs 61.20 crore deposited as security, Justice Debangsu Basak and Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi held that merely citing a particular provision does not determine the nature of the application and emphasised the distinction between Section 9, which deals with interim measures for protection and preservation, and Section 36, which governs stay of enforcement of an award.
The bench observed that, “If repeat application under Section 36 of the Act of 1996 when such application is confined to measures to be put in place under Section 36 of the Act of 1996 that is to say that, condition for grant of stay of the enforcement of the award impugned under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 then, such repeat application by no stretch of imagination can be classified to be one under Section 9 of the Act of 1996, sans any other details. In absence of relief being sought by an applicant for protection and preservation of the subject matter of the disputes referred to in arbitration, post the award, an application simplicitor touching on the modalities for grant of stay of enforcement of the arbitral award, cannot be treated to be an application under Section 9 of the Act of 1996.”
Calcutta High Court Restores Arbitral Award In Bhubaneswar Airport Terminal Construction Dispute
Case Title : M/s NBCC India Limited Vs. M/s J.G. Engineers Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : AO-COM 13 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 96
The Calcutta High Court on Thursday set aside a Single Judge's order that had interfered with an arbitral award in a dispute over construction of a terminal and allied buildings at Bhubaneswar Airport. The court held that the court exercising jurisdiction under Section 34 cannot substitute the arbitrator's plausible view with its own. A Division Bench of Justices Debangsu Basak and Md. Shabbar Rashidi was hearing appeals filed by NBCC India Limited against the July 1, 2024 order by which the Single Judge had allowed the contractor's challenge, set aside the counterclaims awarded to NBCC, and dismissed NBCC's own challenge to the arbitral award.
Setting aside that order, the Bench held that the Single Judge had exceeded the limited scope of interference under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. It said the arbitral award was based on evidence and reflected a possible view, which could not have been disturbed.
Profits Earned Do Not Negate Damages Claim In Arbitration: Calcutta High Court
Case Title : SRMB SRIJAN LIMITED -VS- GREAT EASTERN ENERGY CORPORATION LIMITED
Case Number : AO-COM 30 OF 2024 WITH AP-COM 281 OF 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 86
On Monday, 13 April, the Calcutta High Court held that earning profits does not, by itself, defeat a claim for damages arising from breach of contract and upheld the arbitral award in favour of Great Eastern Energy Corporation Limited (GEECL) A Division Bench of Justices Arijit Banerjee and Om Narayan Rai dismissed SRMB Srijan Ltd's appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, clarifying that damages are not limited to actual loss but also include loss of expected or additional profits.
The judges observed: “If a person earns profits by employing all avenues that he has, he cannot be said to have failed in mitigating his damages. But, can such earning of profit alone always lead to the conclusion that there has been no damage at all? The answer has to be in the negative as there can be situations where a person could be entitled to more profits than what he has actually earned but has been deprived of the further profit element due to the breach of the contract complained of.”
Case Title : Starlift Services Private Limited v. Syama Prasad Mookerjee Port, Kolkata; State of West Bengal v. Rajpath Contractors and Engineers Ltd & Anr.
Case Number : APO/48/2021 with AP/590/2011; APO/141/2023 with AP/915/2011
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 87
The Calcutta High Court on 9 April held that once a Commercial Division is constituted under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, non-commercial benches cease to have jurisdiction to decide commercial arbitration matters, and any judgment delivered thereafter is a nullity.
The Court held: “If a non- Commercial Court or a non-Commercial Division proceeds to decide a commercial dispute involving a specified value, subsequent to the constitution of the Commercial Division, in which such proceedings was pending before the Court, then, on the score that such non-Commercial Court decided the rights between the parties on a procedural regime different to those prescribed under the Act of 2015, the decision rendered would be vitiated.”
Case Title : Percept Talent Management Limited and Anr vs. Sourav Chandidas Ganguly
Case Number : AO-COM/23/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 88
The Calcutta High Court on Thursday dismissed an appeal by Percept Talent Management Ltd., upholding a Rs. 14.49 crore arbitral award in favour of former Indian cricketer Sourav Ganguly and finding that the company had lost its right to terminate a 2003 Player Representation Agreement by waiting too long and continuing to act as his agent. The judgment was delivered on April 16, 2026 by a Division Bench of Justice Debangsu Basak and Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi.
The court also upheld the arbitral tribunal's finding that payments Ganguly received from the IPL franchise Kolkata Knight Riders (KKR) did not fall within the revenue-sharing arrangement under the Player Representation Agreement (PRA), which governed his commercial and endorsement rights.
Case Title : Tapas Kumar Das v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited
Case Number : APOT/32/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 84
The Calcutta High Court has upheld a Single Judge's order setting aside an arbitral award after noting that the arbitrator had entered into constitutional considerations under Article 12 (Definition of State) in a dispute arising purely out of a commercial contract involving Indian Oil Corporation Limited. It observed that such an approach was misplaced and further held that the arbitrator had rewritten the terms of the contract and awarded damages without any supporting evidence.
A Division Bench of Justices Debangsu Basak and Md. Shabbar Rashidi held that, "Learned Single Judge also noted that, learned Arbitrator embarked upon a discussion as to the applicability of Constitutional provisions as, the respondent is an authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Learned Single Judge held that the contract between the parties was voluntarily undertaken and that there was no scope to enter into the arena of infringement of constitutional right as done by the learned Arbitrator."
Gujarat High Court
Case Title : Accurate Thermal Spray Private Limited v. SKF Engineering and Lubrication India Private Limited
Case Number : R/First Appeal No. 4652 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(GUJ) 51
The Gujarat High Court has upheld the setting aside of a Rs 25 crore arbitral award in a dispute over a failed industrial project, holding that the tribunal had effectively rewritten the contract by imposing an obligation to provide an approach road that was never agreed upon, while fastening liability despite the claimant not having set up the factory, which was a prerequisite for triggering the respondent's obligations.
It further found that the arbitral tribunal had travelled beyond the contract by relying on email exchanges and surrounding circumstances to conclude that SKF had agreed to provide access to the claimant's land, even though the written agreement contained no such clause. “By holding that the respondent had agreed to provide approach road to the claimant and non providing of the same had obstructed / prevented the claimant from setting up the factory, i.e. from performing the contractual obligation of the claimant, the learned Arbitrator has thrust upon a new liability upon the respondent unilaterally as against its intention. That being the case, it is clear that the award had created a new contract for the parties on unilateral intention of the claimant against the intention of the respondent. A fundamental principle of justice has been breached by unilateral addition or alteration of the contract foisted upon an unwilling party,” the Court said.
Punjab & Haryana High Court
Case Title : VCA Estate Private Limited v. Baldev Raj and others
Case Number : ARB-536-2025 (O&M)
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (PNH) 24
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that a clause allowing a civil suit for specific performance does not override a clear arbitration clause between parties, appointing an arbitrator to resolve a land dispute after rejecting objections of coercion and invalidity. Justice Jasgurpreet Singh Puri said, “When in an agreement, there exists a specific clause pertaining to arbitration, which remains undisputed then the mere fact that there is some other clause providing entitlement to file a suit for specific performance cannot oust the relevance and operation of the arbitration clause."
Case Title : Yashpreet Singh And Ors. Versus Union Of India And Another
Case Number : CR-3884-2023 (O&M) and other connected cases
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (PNH) 23
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that courts at Faridkot would have jurisdiction to entertain challenges to arbitral awards arising out of the NH-15 Amritsar–Bathinda project, and not courts at Bathinda, as the arbitral proceedings were conducted and the awards were passed at Faridkot. A coram of Justice Jasgurpreet Singh Puri observed that "Although the present cases pertain to statutory arbitration but it is an admitted fact that the arbitration has been conducted at Faridkot with the participation of all the parties and the award has been passed at Faridkot and therefore, while applying the principles of law laid down as aforestated, the venue and the seat of the arbitration is at Faridkot.” and once the seat is so determined, the courts at that place would have jurisdiction.
Case Title : Rayat Educational and Research Trust (Regd.) vs Punjab Skill Development Mission
Case Number : ARB-527-2025 (O&M)
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (PNH) 20
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that merely labelling a clause as “Arbitration and Applicable Laws” does not make it an arbitration agreement, refusing to appoint an arbitrator where the clause itself did not provide for the reference of disputes to arbitration.
“A perusal of the aforesaid Clause 8.1 would show that although the heading of the Clause is stated as “Arbitration and Applicable Laws” but the substance of the Clause provides that any dispute arising in connection with the MOU, which cannot be resolved amicably, shall be referred to the Empowered Committee for DDUGKY in the Ministry of Rural Development, Government of India. Therefore, in the Clause itself, there is no such reference made to arbitration or to follow any arbitration process and the mere fact that the heading of the Clause states “Arbitration and Applicable Laws” would not mean that the same can be given the meaning of an arbitration clause,” the court observed.
'May Refer To Arbitration' Clause Valid Where Agreement Shows Clear Intent: Punjab and Haryana HC
Case Title : Realsta Infratech Pvt Ltd v. M/s Pace Stock Broking Services Pvt Ltd
Case Number : ARB-758-2025 (O&M)
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (PNH) 22
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that a clause in a Leave and License Agreement between Realsta Infratech Pvt Ltd and Pace Stock Broking Services Pvt Ltd constituted a valid arbitration clause, despite using the expression “may refer to arbitration," as the provision, read as a whole, reflected a clear intention to arbitrate upon failure of amicable settlement. Justice Jasgurpreet Singh Puri appointed former Delhi High Court judge Justice Talwant Singh as the sole arbitrator to decide the disputes between the parties.
The court observed, “In the first part, the parties are to amicably resolve the dispute by way of negotiation and in case this is not done, then the party raising a dispute may refer the dispute for resolution by arbitration and thereafter in the second part, the procedure and seat of arbitration have been prescribed. The aforesaid continuity in two phases itself clearly suggests the intention of the parties that in default of settlement through amicable negotiation, the parties may refer the dispute for resolution through arbitration.”
Arbitration Clause In Purchase Orders Enough to Appoint Arbitrator: Punjab & Haryana High Court
Case Title : Aditya Birla Real Estate Limited v. Orient Craft Limited
Case Number : ARB-230-2023(O&M)
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (PNH) 18
The Punjab and Haryana High Court on 19 March, held that an arbitration clause in purchase orders is sufficient under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to allow appointment of an arbitrator. A Single Judge Bench of Justice Jasgurpreet Singh Puri allowed a petition by Aditya Birla Real Estate Limited and appointed Justice Ajay Tewari (Retd.) as the Sole Arbitrator in disputes arising out of 20 purchase orders issued by Orient Craft Limited for the supply of fabric. He noted:
“From a perusal of the note appended with Clause 12, it becomes very clear that there is a prima facie existence of an arbitration clause… both the essential conditions for appointment of an Arbitrator under Section 11 of the Act stand satisfied namely, prima facie existence of an arbitration clause and its invocation thereof by issuance of a notice.”
Gauhati High Court
Case Title : Ekta Shakti Foundation v. State of Assam & Anr.
Case Number : Arb.P./27/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(GAU) 12
The Gauhati High Court has appointed its former judge Justice Achintya Malla Bujor Barua as sole arbitrator in a dispute between Ekta Shakti Foundation and the State of Assam, holding that, in the peculiar facts of the case, an arbitration plea can be entertained even without a formal notice where a valid arbitration agreement is undisputed. A Bench of Justice Soumitra Saikia said, "it appears that the dispute between the parties have not been resolved and on the other hand there is a method for taking recourse to resolving such disputes expressly agreed upon by the parties by way of reference to arbitration. The only hurdle that is presented before the Court by the Respondents is non issuance of a notice under section 21 and thereby the power required to be invoked by the referral Court under section 11(6) cannot be invoked until and unless such agreed terms are enforced by the parties in terms of the said agreement. "
Case Title : Lokesh Anand Singhal & Another v Pride Realty and Others
Case Number : Case No. : Arb.A./5/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(GAU) 11
The Gauhati High Court on 31 March, held that once the State designates a Court as a Commercial Appellate Court under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, the appellate forum is determined strictly by such designation and not by the ordinary pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Judge. A Bench comprising Justice Mridul Kumar Kalita dismissed an appeal filed by Lokesh Anand Singhal and Shilpi Anand Singhal, holding that the High Court lacked jurisdiction as the statutory appellate remedy lay before the designated Commercial Appellate Court.
The Bench observed: “Section 13(1) of the Commercial Court Act provides that 'any person aggrieved by the judgment or order of a Commercial Court below the level of a District Judge may appeal to the Commercial Appellate Court within the period of sixty days from the date of judgment or order'.”
Patna High Court
Patna High Court Sets Aside Award Based On Pleadings Alone Without Evidence, Cites Natural Justice
Case Title : Narayan Prasad v. State of Bihar
Case Number : Commercial Appeal No. 1 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(PAT) 7
The Patna High Court has recently set aside an arbitral award and a subsequent order upholding it, holding that an award based solely on pleadings without proof of documents violates the principles of natural justice and cannot be sustained.
The ruling came in a dispute arising from an excavation contract between contractor Narayan Prasad and the State of Bihar, where the contractor had been directed to pay Rs 7.41 lakh as excess payment and Rs 6.68 lakh towards rectification of a ditch, along with interest at 12% per annum. A Division Bench of Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Justice Soni Shrivastava observed, “In the present case, it is evident from the various orders passed by the learned arbitrator that at no stage of the proceeding, the learned Arbitrator decided as to whether to hold oral hearings for the presentation of evidence or for oral argument. The pleadings in form of statement of claims and statement of defence cannot take place of the oral or documentary evidence. The minimum thing which was required to be done was to call upon the parties to admit or deny the documents submitted by both of them… Even as strict rules of evidence would not apply but these are to be followed as fundamental policy of law. It is also in consonance with the principles of natural justice.”
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Madhya Pradesh High Court Holds ICA Award Void, Says Only CJI Can Appoint Arbitrator
Case Title : Ssangyong Engineering and Construction Company Ltd v. M/s S.B. Engineering Associates
Case Number : Arbitration Appeal No. 14 of 2023 & 25 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (MP) 26
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that an arbitral award against Ssangyong Engineering and Construction Company Ltd is a nullity in law, as the dispute was an international commercial arbitration and, under Sections 11(9) and 11(12) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, only the Chief Justice of India or a person or institution designated by him could appoint the arbitrator. The court noted that Ssangyong is a company incorporated in the Republic of Korea, and therefore the arbitration between the parties falls within the definition of an international commercial arbitration under Section 2(1)(f). In such a case, it held, the jurisdiction to appoint an arbitrator lies exclusively with the Chief Justice of India. The appointment made by the High Court was thus without jurisdiction.
Chief Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Vinay Saraf observed, “Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act does not empower the person designated by the Chief Justice of High Court to appoint an arbitrator in International Commercial Arbitration mbut only empowers the Chief Justice of India. The provisions are mandatory in nature and cannot be waived.”
MP High Court Sets Aside Arbitral Award In Insulator Supply Dispute For Patent Illegality
Case Title : Madhya Pradesh Power Transmission Company Limited v VK Udyog Ltd.
Case Number : Arbitration Appeal No. 15 and 16 Of 2024
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (MP) 28
Setting aside an arbitral award in a dispute over the supply of disc insulators for transmission lines, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has found that the award was vitiated by patent illegality, noting that the arbitrator overlooked key provisions of the Contract Act and returned findings that did not align with the contractual record.
The Bench of Justices Vivek Rusia and Pradeep Mittal said the November 16, 2018 award was marked by fundamental errors. It pointed out that the arbitrator had wrongly applied Sections 20, 62, 73 and 74 of the Contract Act and failed to properly engage with crucial aspects of the agreement between the parties.
The court held:
“The award is set aside on the ground of patent illegality, inasmuch as the learned Arbitrator has: (i) failed to consider the Appellant's objections founded on Sections 20, 73 and 74 of the Contract Act; (ii) misapplied Section 62 of the Contract Act by treating a bilateral contractual amendment, validly entered into between the parties, as a nullity; and (iii) rendered a finding on rejection of goods that is contrary to the documentary record and the terms of the contract. Each of these infirmities independently constitutes patent illegality within the meaning of Section 34(2A) of the Act, 1996, warranting interference”
Case Title : SS Associates v Dilip Buildcon
Case Number : Arbitration Case No. 141 Of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (MP) 25
The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently reiterated that parallel criminal proceedings between private parties do not bar arbitration unless the allegations have a public character and proceeded to appoint an arbitrator in a dispute arising out of purchase orders between the parties.
A single bench of Justice Vivek Jain emphasised, observing, “Be that as it may be, but it is settled in law that even where criminal proceedings are pending parallelly, then also arbitration proceedings can continue unless the criminal allegation is of such a nature that it amounts to an allegation in rem, but where the criminal action or criminality alleged by one party against the other party is criminality alleged in personam then the arbitration proceedings cannot be scuttled."
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case Title : Katta Srinivasu v. M/s IKF Finance Limited
Case Number : Civil Revision Petition Nos. 2345 of 2022 & 419 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(APH) 32
The Andhra Pradesh High Court on 10 April reiterated that unilateral appointment of a sole arbitrator by a finance company violated the principle of equal treatment under Article 14 of the Constitution, and set aside execution proceedings arising from an arbitral award passed for recovery of loan dues. A Division Bench of Justices Ravi Nath Tilhari and Balaji Medamalli allowed civil revision petitions filed by Katta Srinivasu and another petitioner against IKF Finance Limited, and held that the arbitral award was without jurisdiction and unenforceable.
The Court held: “We reach to the conclusion that the appointment of the sole Arbitrator unilaterally appointed by the Finance Company is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It was invalid. The Arbitrator had no jurisdiction, it lacked inherent jurisdiction to pass the Award. The ineligibility under law under Section 12 read with Seventh Schedule, was attracted with respect to the person legal Manager of the 1st respondent Finance Company was attracted. So, he could also not appoint/nominate 2nd respondent as the sole arbitrator. There was no express waiver by any agreement in writing in terms of proviso to Sub-Section (5) of Section 12 of the Act 1996.”
Chhattisgarh High Court
Case Title : Chief General Manager Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and Ors. Versus M/s Talat Construction Kharasia Naka, Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh
Case Number : ARBA No. 40 of 2018
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (CHH) 9
The Chhattisgarh High Court has recently set aside an arbitral award against Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL), holding that the arbitrator granted interest despite a clear contractual prohibition and awarded loss of profit without any supporting evidence, rendering the award legally unsustainable. Justice Bibhu Datta Guru found that the arbitrator had acted contrary to the terms agreed between the parties. The court said, “A perusal of the aforesaid clause would clearly reveal that the payment of interest on the Security Deposit was expressly barred. In spite of such a stipulation, the learned Arbitrator has proceeded to award interest in favour of the claimant, which is clearly contrary to the contractual provisions governing the parties. In the present case, the award of interest being in the teeth of the contractual bar cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside."
Dispute Does Not Become Commercial Just Because It Is An Arbitration Matter: Chhattisgarh High Court
Case Title : Anand Khedia & Ors. v. Commissioner-cum-Arbitrator & Ors.
Case Number : Arbitration Appeal No. 26 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (CHH) 11
The Chhattisgarh High Court has recently held that a dispute does not become a “commercial dispute” merely because it arises out of arbitration, setting aside the transfer of a land acquisition compensation challenge to a Commercial Court.
A Division Bench of Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal and Justice Sachin Singh Rajput observed that "A dispute will not become a commercial dispute merely because it is an arbitration matter and and jurisdiction in respect with an arbitration matter has been dealt with separately under Sections 10 and 15(2) of the Act of 2015. Every application filed under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 cannot be transferred to the Commercial Court under Section 15(2) of the Act of 2015 and only such applications will be required to be transferred, which are relating to a commercial dispute of a specified value covered under Section 2(1)(c) read with Section 2(i) of the Act of 2015."
Rajasthan High Court
When Can Arbitral Awards Be Set Aside? Rajasthan High Court Lays Down Principles To Check Perversity
Case Title : State of Rajasthan & Ors. v Shri I.J. Mamtani & Anr.
Case Number : D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2530/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (RAJ) 12
While underscoring that the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was enacted to ensure effective and expeditious resolution of disputes, the Rajasthan High Court expressed concern over the increasing trend of arbitral awards being challenged “as if an appeal has been filed.” A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Shubha Mehta dismissed an appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan against an order of the Commercial Court which had rejected its objections under Section 34 of the Act and affirmed the arbitral award.
“The Act of 1996 essentially was passed with the purpose of deciding disputes in an effective and quick manner. However, we see and note that in almost all the cases where arbitration awards are passed, the same are taken up by way of raising objections under Section 34 of the Act of 1996, as if an appeal has been filed..”, it held.
Allahabad High Court
Case Title: Sri Rajendra Prasad Singh v. M/s Arch Construction Thru. Partner Sri Santosh Kumar Singh and 3 Others
Case Number : WRIT - C No. - 10703 of 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (ALL) 36
The Allahabad High Court on 27 April held that even where a Court appoints an Arbitral Tribunal under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 without examining limitation, the Arbitral Tribunal can still decide such objections under Section 16.
A Bench of Justices Shekhar B. Saraf and Abdesh Kumar Chaudhary held that Arbitral Tribunals retain full authority to decide their own jurisdiction, including limitation, even after a Section 11 reference, and set aside the Tribunal's view that it lacked such power. It noted:
“even if the High Court referred the matter to arbitration, the Arbitral Tribunal under Section 16 of the Act had the power to decide on its own jurisdiction. The Arbitral Tribunal is the forum for deciding all issues that the parties may raise including the issues of limitation that may have not been raised by the parties at the time of order passed by the High Court under Section 11 of the Act.”
Arbitral Award Executable Against SPV Members Not Party To Proceedings: Allahabad High Court
Case Title : M/S U.P. Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam, Ltd. Thru. Authorised Representative Pradeep Soni And Others v. M/S Adani Enterprises Ltd., Ahemdabad Thru. Managing Director Ahemdabad And Another
Case Number : MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. 6089 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (ALL) 34
The Allahabad High Court on 9 April held that members of a special purpose vehicle (SPV) fall within the expression “persons claiming under them” under Section 35 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and allowed arbitral awards to be executed against them even if they were not parties to the arbitration proceedings. Justice Pankaj Bhatia delivered the ruling while dismissing petitions challenging execution proceedings initiated by Adani Enterprises Ltd. against shareholders of an SPV that had contracted with Adani. He held:
“a normal decree passed by a competent Court of law against a company can be executed only against the judgment debtor company and not against its shareholders/directors unless ingredients of lifting the corporate veil is established, however, an award passed under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act can be executed against the 'party' or any 'person claiming under them.”
Tripura High Court
Reconstructed Record Gaps No Ground To Set Aside Award: Tripura High Court
Case Title : Debashish Das v State of Tripura
Case Number : Commercial Appeal No.03 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (TRI) 2
The Tripura High Court on 1 April, held that a Court hearing a challenge to an arbitral award cannot rely on gaps in a reconstructed record to question the Arbitrator's findings or the existence of material that was before the Arbitrator at the time of adjudication. A Bench comprising Chief Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao and Justice Bishawajit Palit set aside the Commercial Court's order, and upheld the arbitral award. They held:
“...merely because they were not found in the reconstructed record, the award of the Arbitrator cannot be interfered with by the Commercial Court because such loss of original record cannot be put by the respondents as a point in their favour to doubt the Arbitrator's integrity and question the very existence of such material at all. Such material has to be believed to exist and also to have been considered by the Arbitrator, though it might have got lost subsequently."