LiveLawBiz Arbitration Cases Quarterly Digest: January - March 2026
Shivani PS
4 April 2026 9:23 PM IST
Supreme Court
Case Title : R. Savithri Naidu v. The Cotton Corporation of India Ltd. & Anr.
Case Number : Civil Appeal No. 1602/2026 [Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 19779 of 2024]
Citation : 2026 LLBiz SC 66
The Supreme Court has reaffirmed that a person who purchases disputed property after the passing of an arbitral award cannot obstruct its attachment in execution proceedings. A Bench of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti warned that permitting such objections would derail the execution process, causing proceedings to get trapped “in an infinite loop and practically never get completed,” and reducing decrees to mere “paper tigers.”
The court emphasised its ruling in Jini Dhanrajgir v. Shibu Mathew (2023), that "winning a case is meaningless unless the winner actually gets the relief they sought,” and stressed that the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure “must be employed to secure actual relief, not just a formal decree.” Rejecting the appeal, the Court held that for the purposes of Order XXI Rule 102 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the relevant date is the institution of the proceedings and not merely the pendency of a challenge to the award.
Case Title : Aspek Media Pvt Ltd & Ors. vs Entertainment City Ltd
Case Number : SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No. 3190/2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz SC 68
The Supreme Court dismissed a special leave petition filed by Aspek Media Pvt. Ltd. and others against Entertainment City Limited, declining to interfere with a Delhi High Court order in an arbitration matter.
A Bench of Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Atul S. Chandurkar said: “After hearing learned counsel, we see no reason and ground to interfere with the order impugned. Accordingly, the special leave petition is dismissed.”
Justice Jasmeet Singh held that there were “clear findings of diversion of funds” by the directors and distinguished earlier precedents relied upon by the judgment debtor.
The Court allowed the application, directed the impleadment of Harish Choudhary and Dharamvir Choudhary, Directors of Aspek Media Pvt. Ltd., and ordered them to file affidavits of assets from financial year 2014-15 onwards in terms of Order XXI Rule 41(2) CPC.
Case Title : Rashtriya Chemicals & Fertilisers Ltd vs Thermax Ltd
Case Number : Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 6365/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz SC 70
The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed a special leave petition filed by Rashtriya Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd (RCF) challenging a Bombay High Court order that refused to allow it to retain Rs. 218.45 crore deposited by Thermax Ltd after an arbitral award in its favour was set aside. A bench of Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Alok Aradhe declined to interfere with the January 28, 2026 order of the High Court's division bench.
The Court observed, “While we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the High Court, we make it clear that the petitioner shall deposit the amount as directed, within four weeks from today.” With these observations, the special leave petition was dismissed.
The division bench had held that once the arbitral award dated June 5, 2023 was set aside, there was no arbitral award in existence and, therefore, RCF could not claim any right over the amount deposited as a condition for stay of the award.
Case Title : Asad Mueed & Ors. vs Jamia Hamdard Deemed to Be University
Case Number : PETITION(S) FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (C) NO(S).3280/2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz SC 65
The Supreme Court deemed the Consent of Affiliation to have been granted by Jamia Hamdard Deemed to be University to Hamdard Institute of Medical Sciences & Research (HIMSR), after noting that 49 postgraduate students had already been admitted pursuant to its earlier interim directions.
A Bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan said the consent would be treated as granted, subject to the final outcome of the Special Leave Petition.
“In the circumstances, we observe that since there has been admission of as many as forty nine students in the third petitioner-College, the consent of affiliation is deemed to have been granted by the first respondent University in favour of the third respondent-University subject to the result of this Special Leave Petition.”, the court said.
On appeal, the high court observed that an executing court cannot travel beyond the arbitral mandate or adjudicate complex regulatory issues reserved for statutory authorities. It held that compliance must be subject to applicable statutory regimes and that enforcement cannot override decisions of competent regulatory bodies.
Case Title : Jan De Nul Dredging India Pvt. Ltd. v. Tuticorin Port Trust
Case Number : Civil Appeal No. 98 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz SC 15
The Supreme Court, recently, set aside a Madras High Court order that had deleted compensation awarded to a dredging contractor and reiterated that appellate courts cannot interfere with arbitral awards merely because they prefer a different interpretation of the contract. A Bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Pankaj Mithal held that courts hearing appeals in arbitration matters have a narrow and limited role. Once an arbitral award has been examined and found free from serious flaws, an appellate court cannot re-enter the dispute or reassess the merits.
“If an award is not liable to be disturbed under Section 34 of the Act, the same could not have been interfered with in exercise of powers under Section 37 of the Act,” the court held. Emphasising why restraint is central to arbitration, the top court added, “In the event, the courts are allowed to step in at every stage and the arbitral awards are subjected to challenge before the courts in hierarchy before court of first instance, through regular appeals and finally by means of SLP/Civil Appeal before the Supreme Court, it would obviate/frustrate and defeat the very purpose of the Act.”
Case Title : Jagdeep Chowgule v. Sheela Chowgule and Ors
Case Number : SLP(C) Nos. 10944-10945 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz SC 30
The Supreme Court has held that an application seeking extension of time for an arbitral tribunal under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act lies before the civil court, even in cases where the High Court has appointed the arbitrator. The court clarified that the High Court's role ends with the appointment of the arbitrator and does not continue during the arbitration. A Bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice R. Mahadevan said the jurisdiction exercised by a High Court under Section 11 is limited in scope and comes to an end once the arbitral tribunal is constituted.
Relying on its own ruling in Kamal Gupta v. L.R. Builder (2025), the court held, "Exercise of jurisdiction under Section 11 stands exhausted upon the constitution of the arbitral tribunal. There is no residual supervisory or controlling power left with the High Court or the Supreme Court over the arbitral proceedings after appointment is made. To read Section 11 as conferring such enduring control would be to conflate appointment with supervision, a conflation which the Act as well as the precedents on the subject prohibit,” the Court observed.
Courts Cannot Substitute Plausible Arbitral View Merely Because Another Is Possible: Supreme Court
Case Title: Prakash Atlanta (JV) v. National Highways Authority of India
Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 4513 of 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz SC 17
The Supreme Court has reiterated that courts should exercise minimal interference with arbitral awards and cannot substitute an arbitral tribunal's interpretation of a contract merely because another view is possible. The court also held that although the Building and Other Construction Workers Act, 1996 (BOCW Act) and the Welfare Cess Act were brought into force in the mid-1990s, they could not be given effect to for several years due to the failure of governments to constitute statutory Welfare Boards and put the implementation machinery in place.
A bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kumar and Alok Aradhe made these observations on January 20 while deciding a batch of appeals arising from arbitral awards passed in disputes between contractors and the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI). The court said, “If an arbitral tribunal's view is found to be a possible and plausible one, it cannot be substituted merely because an alternate view is possible. Construction and interpretation of a contract and its terms is a matter for the arbitral tribunal to determine. Unless the same is found to be one that no fair-minded or reasonable person would arrive at, it cannot be interfered with.”
Supreme Court Orders Status Quo, Asset Disclosure In IMAX–E-City Arbitration Dispute
Case Title : E-City Real Estates Pvt Ltd & Anr. v. IMAX Corporation & Ors.
Case Number : Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.2537/2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz SC 22
The Supreme Court on Friday ordered the E-City group to maintain status quo over all its assets and disclose details of its movable and immovable properties while taking up a fresh challenge to the Bombay High Court's decision that revived enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in favour of IMAX Corporation. A bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and K V Viswanathan issued notice on a special leave petition filed by E-City Real Estates Pvt. Ltd. and another group entity, challenging the Bombay High Court's December 30, 2025 decision allowing enforcement of the arbitral awards. Before the Supreme Court on Friday, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for IMAX, stated that since the matter was now pending before the apex court, the company would not proceed with the execution of the arbitral awards for the time being. Recording the statement, the bench granted liberty to both sides to file their submissions.
Parties Cannot Rely On Pre-Arbitration Steps They Frustrated: Supreme Court
Case title – M/s Bhagheeratha Engineering Ltd. v. State of Kerala
Case Number : Civil Appeal No. 39 of 2026
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 5
The Supreme Court bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and KV Viswanathan, set aside a Kerala High Court judgment which had held that an arbitral tribunal cannot decide disputes beyond a specific issue referred to it and that a party cannot raise additional disputes without issuing a separate notice under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Court noted that the conduct of the State showed that it never treated the Adjudicator's decision as final and binding and had itself sought to reopen all disputes by asking for the entire decision to be declared null and void. The Court held that a party cannot take advantage of its own conduct to defeat arbitration.
Case Title – Motilal Oswal Financial Services Limited v. Santosh Cordeiro and Another
Case Number : Civil Appeal no. 36 of 2026
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 4
The Supreme Court upheld a Bombay High Court order appointing an arbitrator in a dispute arising from a leave and licence agreement for office premises of Motilal Oswal Financial Services Limited at Malad, Mumbai, holding that an arbitration agreement existed between the parties.
A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan held that the High Court was right in allowing the application filed by the licensor and appointing a sole arbitrator, as the court's jurisdiction at that stage was confined to examining the existence of an arbitration agreement under Section 11(6A) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. On Section 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882 the court stated that, “it will be clear that Section 41 is a provision conferring jurisdiction on the Small Causes Court for certain types of disputes and cannot be interpreted to mean that ex proprio vigore (by its own force), it neutralizes arbitration clauses in agreements.”
It also referred to later Supreme Court decisions, including Vidya Drolia v. Durga Trading Corpn. and the seven-judge bench ruling in In re Interplay Between Arbitration Agreements under Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 & Stamp Act, 1899, to reiterate that conferment of jurisdiction on a specific court is not by itself decisive of non-arbitrability.
Case Title : Talwandi Sabo Power Ltd vs Punjab State Power Corporation
Case Number : Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 6462/2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz SC 72
The Supreme Court has recently refused to interfere with a Punjab and Haryana High Court decision dismissing a writ petition filed by Vedanta Group company Talwandi Sabo Power Ltd against an arbitral tribunal's order that held part of its claim fell outside the scope of arbitration in its dispute with Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd (PSPCL). A bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and K. Vinod Chandran dismissed the special leave petition.
The Court said, “The special leave petition is, accordingly, dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioner, Talwandi Sabo Power Ltd., to take recourse to the remedy referred to in paragraph-13 of the impugned judgment/order in accordance with law.”
It held that an effective statutory remedy was available and that writ jurisdiction cannot ordinarily be invoked in such circumstances. The High Court imposed costs of Rs 50 thousand on the company and directed that the amount be deposited with the High Court Legal Services Committee within three months.
Direction To Deposit Proceeds In Escrow Warranted Only In Limited Circumstances: Supreme Court
Case Title : A2Z Infraservices Ltd & Anr vs Quippo Infrastructure Ltd & Ors
Case Number : Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.8636/2021
Citation: 2026 LLBiz SC 60
The Supreme Court has held that a direction to deposit proceeds in an escrow account cannot be issued as a matter of routine in arbitration dispute.
The court observed that such an arrangement is ordinarily warranted only where the underlying contract providing for escrow is subsisting or where there is material to show that the party receiving the money is likely to divert it and lacks sufficient assets to satisfy the award if it goes against it.
A Bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Manmohan allowed an appeal filed by A2Z Infraservices Ltd, setting aside a Calcutta High Court order which had directed deposit of contractual receipts into an escrow account during the pendency of arbitration proceedings.
“Ordinarily, a direction to deposit the proceeds in an Escrow Account is to be made where either the contract between the parties envisaging such arrangement is subsisting or the party who is to receive the money is likely to divert it and, if allowed to do so, has insufficient assets to make good the amount in case the award goes against it. In short, the purpose of directing such an arrangement is to ensure the execution of the award ultimately passed,” the Court observed.
Case Title : National Highways Authority of India vs Vadodara Mumbai Expressway PKG-08 Pvt Ltd
Case Number : Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos.622-623 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz SC 59
The Supreme Court has modified a Delhi High Court order that had directed the National Highways Authority of India to deposit the entire arbitral award of over Rs. 1,019 crore in its dispute with Vadodara Mumbai Expressway PKG-08 Pvt. Ltd., and instead ordered it to deposit 50% of the total amount referred to in its order.
A bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K.V. Viswanathan was hearing special leave petitions arising out of the High Court's November 19, 2025 order passed in proceedings under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
“We modify the order passed by the High Court to the extent that NHAI shall deposit 50% of the total amount referred to above with the Registry of the Delhi High Court within a period of eight weeks from today.” the Court directed.
The High Court had directed NHAI to deposit Rs 5,32,78,50,000 awarded for Phase VIII and Rs 4,86,24,13,440 awarded for Phase IX, aggregating Rs 101,902,633,440. The Supreme Court noted that with interest the amount came to Rs. 1,197,72,60,596 as on February 9, 2026. The awards were granted in favour of the concessionaire towards adjusted equity.
Case Title : E-City Real Estates Pvt Ltd & ANR vs IMAX Corporation & Ors
Case Number : Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.2537/2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz SC 22
The Supreme Court of India on Wednesday appointed former apex court judge Justice Abhay S. Oka as mediator to explore the possibility of settlement between IMAX Corporation and the E-City Group in their dispute concerning enforcement of foreign arbitral awards. The court was hearing the matter arising out of the Bombay High Court's December 2025 judgment reviving enforcement proceedings in favour of IMAX.
A bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K.V. Viswanathan was further informed that the hearing on merits would require at least a full day of arguments and would take considerable time. In view of the pendency of the matter and the prolonged history of the dispute, the court deemed it appropriate to explore the possibility of an amicable resolution. “We are of the view having regards to the fact that this litigation between the parties is now two decades old. They should make all possible endevours to sit, talk and try to arrive at some equitable settlement. In such circumstances, we appoint Hon'ble Justice Abhay Oka, former judge of this court to act as mediator between the parties.”, the court said.
High Courts Cannot Nullify Prior Arbitral Proceedings While Substituting Arbitrator: Supreme Court
Case Title : Ankhim Holdings Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. versus Zaveri Construction Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL NO. 779/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz SC 53
The Supreme Court of India has observed hat while appointing a substitute arbitrator under Section 15(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, High Courts cannot invalidate prior arbitral proceedings or orders. A Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K.V. Viswanathan set aside a portion of an order passed by the Bombay High Court, which, while appointing a substitute arbitrator, had declared arbitral proceedings conducted on seven dates between March 17, 2022 and August 25, 2022, to be void on the ground that they were undertaken during the insolvency moratorium.
“The proper and legal course for the High Court acting under Section 15(2) of the Act, 1996, should have been to appoint a substitute arbitrator to continue from the existing stage of the proceedings,” the Court observed.
The Court held that the High Court, while acting under Section 15(2), could not set aside an order rejecting a jurisdictional objection under Section 16, nor could it nullify interim orders passed under Section 17, except through the appellate mechanism prescribed under Section 37 of the Act.
Case Title : J. Muthurajan & Anr. vs S. Vaikundarajan & Ors.
Case Number : Special Leave Petition (C) No.16254 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz SC 57
The Supreme Court has restored a civil suit challenging a family partition deed and an alleged conciliation award, observing that any conciliation conducted in accordance with Part III of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 would attain the status and effect of an award unless the parties have expressly agreed to exclude its application.
"On a reading of Section 61, any conciliation between two parties brought about by following the procedure in Part III of the Act of 1996 would definitely get the status and effect of an Award under the Act of 1996 unless the parties have agreed otherwise; which agreement should be expressly for the exclusion of Part III of the Act of 1996, despite a conciliation having been proceeded with and concluded,” the Court observed.
A Bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and K. Vinod Chandran allowed appeals filed by J. Muthurajan and another, representing the Jegatheesan group, challenging the rejection of their partition suit. Setting aside the orders of the trial court and the Madras High Court, which had rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, the Court held, “The grounds of coercion, undue influence and more importantly misrepresentation, resulting in an inequitable partition, cannot be peremptorily rejected while considering an application under Order VII, Rule 11 of the CPC.”
Case Title : C. Velusamy v. K. Indhera
Case Number : SLP (C) NO(S). 6551 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz SC 39
The Supreme Court on Tuesday (February 3) held that arbitral awards delivered beyond the statutory timeline prescribed under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, do not automatically become ineffective. The Court clarified that such awards remain ineffective and unenforceable at that stage but may still be given effect if a party approaches the competent court seeking an extension of the arbitral tribunal's mandate under Section 29A. “…we are of the opinion that provisions of the Act, particularly Section 29A, must not be interpreted to infer a threshold bar for an application under Section 29A(5) for extension of the mandate of the arbitrator even when an award is passed, though after the expiry of the mandate,” observed a Bench comprising Justices P.S. Narasimha and Atul S. Chandurkar.
Case Title : Eminent Colonizers Private Limited v. Rajasthan Housing Board & Ors.
Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL NO. 753 OF 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz SC 48
The Supreme Court on February 4th, reaffirmed that parties who accept a court order appointing an arbitrator under the pre-2015 arbitration regime cannot later challenge the existence or validity of the arbitration clause while assailing the arbitral award. The ruling was delivered by a bench comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K.V. Viswanathan. Under the law as it stood before the 2015 amendments, the Chief Justice or the designated judge exercising powers under Section 11 was required to undertake a judicial determination of jurisdictional issues, including whether a valid arbitration agreement existed. That determination, the court reiterated, attained finality under Section 11(7) and bound the parties through all subsequent stages of the dispute, including challenges under Section 34. The Court relied on the precedent in SBP & Co. v. Patel Engineering Ltd. (2005), which settled that once a Section 11 appointment is accepted, parties cannot later reopen questions surrounding the arbitration agreement's existence or validity before either the arbitral tribunal or the courts. As a result, the Supreme Court held that the lower courts had exceeded their jurisdiction by reopening issues already settled at the Section 11 stage. The court observed that the order appointing the arbitrator had attained finality and that, having accepted that order, the respondents were precluded from questioning the existence or validity of the arbitration agreement at the Section 34 stage.
Case Title : Rajia Begum vs Barnali Mukherjee
Case Number : SLP (C) NO.6013 OF 2021
Citation : 2026 LLBiz SC 36
The Supreme Court observed that disputes cannot be referred to arbitration when the very existence of the arbitration agreement is in question, particularly where the document relied upon is alleged to be forged. A bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe said courts must first satisfy themselves that an arbitration agreement actually exists before sending parties to arbitration. The court clarified that challenges going to the root of the arbitration clause itself take the dispute outside the arbitral process. It held, “Thus, in a case where plea is taken with regard to nonexistence of an arbitration clause or agreement, the same would amount to serious allegation of fraud and would render the subject matter of an agreement non-arbitrable.” Further, as the bench put it, “Where the arbitration agreement itself is alleged to be forged or fabricated, the disputes ceases to be merely contractual and strikes at the very root of arbitral jurisdiction.” Holding that the High Court had exceeded its supervisory powers by overturning concurrent findings of fact, the Supreme Court set aside the order referring the dispute to arbitration and upheld the refusal to appoint an arbitrator, leaving the matter to be decided by the civil court.
Case Title : BWL Limited (formerly Bhilai Wires Ltd.) v. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited
Case Number : SLP 6447/2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz SC 81
The Supreme Court on Friday refused to interfere with a Delhi High Court ruling declaring that a 2000 arbitral award in favour of BWL Limited against Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited stands satisfied, concluding the dispute between the parties over the computation of post-award interest.
Dismissing a Special Leave Petition, a bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe observed, “We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court.”
Rejecting the contention that post-award interest was payable on the pendente lite interest, the High Court held, “In my opinion, the Supreme Court did not modify the direction passed by the Division Bench directing payment of interest only on the principal amount. The only modification effected by the Supreme Court was in respect of the period for which the post-award interest was payable.”
Supreme Court Upholds Delhi HC Refusal To Recall Arbitrator In Vedanta–GSPC Gas Block Dispute
Case Title : VEDANTA LIMITED (CAIRN OIL AND GAS DIVISION) VERSUS GUJARAT STATE PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD.
Case Number : Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 5072/2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz SC 89
The Supreme Court on Tuesday dismissed special leave petitions in the dispute between Vedanta Ltd (Cairn Oil & Gas Division) and Gujarat State Petroleum Corporation Ltd (GSPC). The court refused to interfere with the Delhi High Court's order declining to recall its earlier Section 11 appointment of an arbitrator and rejecting a related modification plea.
Dismissing the petitions, a bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Manmohan observed, “We do not find a good ground to interfere with the impugned order/judgment in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the special leave petitions stand dismissed.”
Vedanta had also sought modification of the court's direction on arbitrator fees. That application was dismissed as well.
The January 23, 2026 order of the High Court was challenged before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court declined to interfere and dismissed the petitions.
Case Title : Union of India & Ors. v. Larsen & Toubro Limited
Case Number : Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 14989 of 2023
Citation : 2026 LLBiz SC 97
The Supreme Court on Friday held that an arbitral tribunal cannot award pre-award or pendente lite interest when the contract expressly bars payment of interest, even if such amounts are granted in the guise of compensation.
A Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi ruled that “The provisions of the Act of 1996, including provisions contained in Section 31(7)(a) give paramount importance to the contract entered into between the parties and categorically restrict the power of an arbitrator to award pre-award/pendente lite interest when the parties have themselves agreed to the contrary."
The Court held, “Pre-award and post-award interest operate in distinct fields and a contractual bar applicable to the former cannot, by implication, be extended to the latter, and thus, any exclusion of post-award interest must be explicit and unambiguous.”
Supreme Court Sets Aside Interim Relief In Arbitration Case Involving Pure Money Claim
Case Title : A2Z Infraservices Ltd and Anr v. Quippo Infrastructure Ltd and Anr
Case Number : SLP(Civil) No.8636/ 2021
Citation : 2026 LLBiz SC 42
The Supreme Court recently set aside a Calcutta High Court order directing escrow of payments arising out of a master service agreement, holding that in the facts of the case, where the dispute involved a pure money claim and there was no risk of irrecoverability, the High Court ought not to have granted interim protection after arbitration had been invoked. A Bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Manmohan held that in such circumstances, the High Court should have deferred to the arbitral tribunal. The court observed, “In such circumstances, instead of proceeding to pass interim orders under Section 9 of the 1996 Act, the Division Bench ought to have regard to the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 9 and left it for the arbitral tribunal to consider the prayer for interim measures in exercise of its powers under Section 17 of the 1996 Act. ”
Case Title : Vedanta Limited vs Sunflag Iron & Steel Company Limited
Case Number : Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 7569/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 100
The Supreme Court recently declined to interfere with a judgment of the Bombay High Court dismissing Vedanta Ltd's writ petition challenging an arbitral order in its dispute with Sunflag Iron & Steel Co. Ltd over the purchase and supply of LAM Coke. The court also imposed costs of Rs 5 lakh on the company.
A Bench of Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Alok Aradhe dismissed Vedanta's special leave petition, observing:
“We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court. The special leave petition is, however, dismissed with costs quantified at Rs 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five lakhs) which shall be paid to 'Supreme Court Advocate-on-Record Association (SCAORA)' within two weeks from today.”
Supreme Court Allows Set-Off Defence Against Ujaas Energy Though Counterclaim Extinguished Under IBC
Case Title : Ujaas Energy LTD. v. West Bengal Power Development Corporation LTD.
Case Number : SLP (C) 29651 OF 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 122
The Supreme Court on Friday allowed West Bengal Power Development Corporation Ltd. to raise a plea of set-off as a defence in arbitration proceedings against Ujaas Energy Ltd., even though its counterclaim stood extinguished after approval of the resolution plan under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih while granting the relief observed: “Upon a cumulative consideration of all relevant factors, we hold that the respondent, although not entitled to independently pursue its claim by way of counterclaim post approval of the resolution plan, ought to be permitted to raise the plea of set-off at least by way of defence. It is ordered accordingly.”
Case Title : MSA Global LLC (Oman) v. Engineering Projects (India) Limited
Case Number : Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 7545 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 124
The Supreme Court has held that the primary ground for restraining MSA Global LLC (Oman) from continuing arbitration proceedings against Engineering Projects (India) Limited ceased to exist after arbitral tribunal member Andre Yeap resigned, whose alleged non-disclosure had formed the basis of the anti-arbitration injunction. Accordingly, setting aside the Delhi High Court's decision dated December 12, 2025, the Supreme Court restored the appeal to the Division Bench for fresh consideration. A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi held that: “It appears to us that since the primary reason for injuncting the appellant from pursuing his anti-arbitration suit seems to have vanished, the validity of the order dated 25.07.2025 of the learned Single Judge can be re-examined by the Division Bench of the High Court.”
Case Title : ABS Marine Services vs The Andaman and Nicobar Administration
Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 3658-3659 of 2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 127
The Supreme Court expressed shock at the stand taken by the Andaman and Nicobar Administration that a contractual clause made its decision final and beyond challenge, holding that such a term offended the rule of law. The court made the observationwhile setting aside a July 11, 2018 judgment of the Calcutta High Court and restoring an arbitral award of Rs 2.87 crore in favour of ABS Marine Services. A bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K.V. Viswanathan observed: “It is shocking that the respondent administration with all seriousness at their command contend that under Clause 3.20 not only have they a right to decide wilfulness or neglect on the part of the manning agent in cases where liability is disputed, but also that such decision cannot be challenged in any court of law or before the arbitrator. We reject the contentions, since we have held the dispute to be within the jurisdiction of the arbitrator.”
Case Title : Nagaraj V. Mylandla & Anr. v. PI Opportunities Fund-I & Ors.
Case Number : Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 31866–68 of 2025 and 31945–31947 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 132
The Supreme Court of India held that enforcement of foreign arbitral awards cannot be resisted under Section 48 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, on a party's plea re-characterizing factual disputes as issues of public policy, particularly as courts cannot re-examine awards on merits at the enforcement stage. A Division Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Vinod Chandran dismissed Special Leave Petitions filed by Nagaraj V. Mylandla and Sharada Mylandla against enforcement of a Singapore-seated arbitral award directing payment of Rs 6,614 million to PI Opportunities Fund-I, Rs 2,804 million to Millenna FVCI Limited, Rs 777 million to NYLIM I and Rs 1,093 million to NYLIM II. “By giving a different colour to a factual issue, it is not open to a party to the foreign award to seek to bring it within the ambit of Section 48(2)(b) of the Arbitration Act by raising a' public policy' ground. The doctrine of 'transnational issue estoppel' would bar the same," it observed.
Case Title : JioStar India Pvt Ltd vs Green Bean Sports Marketing
Case Number : Petition(s) for Arbitration No(s). 16/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 123
The Supreme Court issued notice in an arbitration petition filed by Jiostar India Pvt. Ltd. seeking appointment of an arbitrator in a dispute with UAE-based Green Bean Sports Marketing arising out of a media rights sub-licence agreement relating to the Indian Premier League (IPL) for the territory of Bangladesh. A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi, after hearing counsel, directed issuance of notice returnable on May 15, 2026.
Case Title : Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai v. M/s R.V. Anderson Associates Ltd.
Case Number : SLP (C) Nos. 23846–23847 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 106
The Supreme Court on Wednesday observed that a party's conduct during arbitration is the clearest indicator of how it understood the arbitration agreement, and cannot later adopt a contrary interpretation to challenge the tribunal after an unfavourable award, while upholding an arbitral award against the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM).
A Division Bench of Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Atul S. Chandurkar dismissed MCGM's challenge to an arbitral award passed in favour of R.V. Anderson Associates Ltd., observing that the manner in which parties act upon a contract is the best guide to interpreting its terms.
“A party cannot keep a 'jurisdictional ace' up their sleeve and then claim that filing of the jurisdictional challenge under Section 16 would go back in time and wipe out the past conduct and acquiescence of the party which would clearly evince how the contractual terms were viewed by the parties. If the same is permitted, it will erode the basic principles of alternative dispute resolution and ethos of arbitration,” the bench observed.
Supreme Court Refuses To Interfere With Arbitrator Appointment In Gini & Jony–Benetton Dispute
Case Title : Gini AND Jony Ltd v. Benetton India Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : SLP (C) 10279 OF 2026
CITATION: 2026 LLBiz SC 133
The Supreme Court dismissed a Special Leave Petition filed by Gini & Jony Ltd. challenging the Delhi High Court's order appointing an arbitrator in its dispute with Benetton India Pvt. Ltd. arising from a distribution agreement for sale of United Colors of Benetton apparel products, involving an unpaid amount of about Rs 91 lakh. After hearing the parties, Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Atul S. Chandurkar dismissed the special leave petition and said: “After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners, we are not inclined to entertain the present SLP and to interfere with the order passed by the High Court.”
Case Title: Bharat Udyog Ltd. (formerly known as M/s Jai Hind Contractors Pvt. Ltd.) v. Ambernath Municipal Council through Commissioner & Anr.,
Case Number: Special Leave Petition (C) No. 1127 of 2017
Citation: 2026 LLBiz SC 129
The Supreme Court dismissed a special leave petition filed by Bharat Udyog Ltd, holding that the State Government had no authority under Section 143-A(3) of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965, which deals with issuance of policy directions regarding the levy and collection of octroi, to appoint an arbitrator between a Municipal Council and its agent. A bench of Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Alok Aradhe observed: “State Government has no authority under Section 143-A(3) of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 to appoint an arbitrator for the agent and the Municipal Council. The exercise of such power by the government cannot be equated to Section 4 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, for there is no such agreement.”
High Courts
Delhi High Court
Case Title : M/s Ramacivil India Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. Central Public Works Department
Case Number : O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 447/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 77
The Delhi High Court recently allowed IIM Jammu to be impleaded in arbitration-related proceedings over the construction of its permanent campus at Jagti, despite the institute not being a signatory to the arbitration agreement. The order, pronounced by Joint Registrar Deepak Dabas, held that the institute is a necessary party because it is the ultimate beneficiary of the premises and of all acts or omissions of the contractor. He held, "I am of the considered view that IIM Jammu is entitled of being impleaded as a party in the present matter as the premises in question have been constructed for applicant/IIM Jammu. IIM Jammu is beneficiary of the premises in question and all the payment for construction of premises has been made/is to be made by IIM Jammu. IIM Jammu is the ultimate beneficiary/sufferer of all the acts/omissions of petitioner,".
Mere Conduct Of Arbitration Under DIAC, By Itself, Doesn't Make Delhi The Seat: Delhi High Court
Case Title : Arun Mehrotra v. Kishan Lal
Case Number : FAO(COMM.) 123/2023
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 85
The Delhi High Court on Tuesday set aside a district court order that refused to hear a challenge to an arbitral award. It held that arbitration conducted under the aegis of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre does not, by itself, make Delhi the seat of arbitration. The Court said that where no seat is expressly designated, courts where a part of the cause of action arises can exercise jurisdiction. Once a competent court is approached first, Section 42 requires that all further court proceedings arising from the same arbitration be heard by that court alone. A Division Bench of Justice Anil Kshetrapal and Justice Amit Mahajan said courts often confuse the seat of arbitration with the venue of hearings.
The Bench said the seat is the juridical centre of the arbitral proceedings. It determines which court exercises supervisory jurisdiction. The venue, by contrast, is only the place where hearings are held for convenience. “The two concepts are distinct and cannot be used interchangeably,” the Court observed. It added that merely because arbitral proceedings are conducted at a particular place does not, by itself, confer exclusive jurisdiction on courts there.
Case Title : Vedanta Limited v. Gujarat State Petroleum Corporation Ltd.
Case Number : I.A. 25230/2025 & I.A. 25279/2025 in ARB.P. 853/2023
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 88
The Delhi High Court has rejected Gujarat State Petroleum Corporation Ltd.'s claim that it lacked jurisdiction to appoint an arbitrator in its dispute with Vedanta Limited, after GSPC argued that a foreign joint venture partner had been deliberately left out of the proceedings. Justice Subramonium Prasad held that the jurisdictional objection, which was raised through a recall application, could not be examined at this stage because the arbitral tribunal is still considering whether Vedanta's joint venture partners, including Cairn Energy Hydrocarbons Limited and ONGC, are necessary parties to the arbitration.
It held that “In case the learned Arbitral Tribunal rejects the said Application, then the entire issue that is now sought to be raised before this Court becomes redundant. Therefore, the present Application, at this juncture, seems to be premature.” “Without the consent of the Respondent, this Court will not have the jurisdiction to alter Paragraph No.33 of the Judgment dated 28.07.2025. The Respondent is correct in stating that it cannot be said that there is any error apparent on the face of the record in the Judgment dated 28.07.2025,” Justice Prasad held.
Case Title : IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Unison Hotels Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : O.M.P. (COMM) 197/2023
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 101
The Delhi High Court on Friday set aside an arbitral award arising out of an insurance dispute between IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Limited and Unison Hotels Private Limited, holding that the tribunal's two-year delay in pronouncing the award after reserving it had vitiated its findings. The case was heard by a Single Judge Bench of Justice Avneesh Jhingan. The court reiterated that the object of arbitration is speedy dispute resolution. It also observed that “it is trite law that the justice should not only be done but should also appear to have been done.”
“Inordinate delay jolts the confidence of the parties as to whether the submissions were effectively weighed”, the court observed. Holding that the prolonged delay had impacted the tribunal's consideration of the jurisdictional objection and rendered the award patently illegal and unsustainable, the High Court allowed the petition and set aside the arbitral award dated March 6, 2023.
Delhi High Court Allows NHPC To Pursue Delayed Challenge To Parbati Project Arbitral Award
Case Title : NHPC Limited v. Chairman-Cum-Managing Director, M/S Patel-L&T Consortium-Parbati HE Project Stage-III
Case Number : I.A. 1707/2020 & I.A. 7844/2022 IN O.M.P. (COMM) 338/2020
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 90
The Delhi High Court has allowed NHPC Limited to pursue a delayed challenge to an arbitral award arising from works executed for the Parbati Hydroelectric Project, after accepting its explanation for the time spent litigating before courts later found to lack territorial jurisdiction. Justice Subramonium Prasad noted that NHPC approached the Delhi High Court within 30 days of the Supreme Court settling the jurisdiction question. The court also took into account that NHPC first had to obtain the return of its papers from the Commercial Court at Gurugram and then refile them in the format required in Delhi.
“In view of these facts, it cannot be said that the Petitioner was not active in pursuing the matter,” the court said. After the Supreme Court's ruling, NHPC refiled its petition before the Delhi High Court and sought exclusion of the time spent before the Faridabad and Gurugram courts. Accepting that NHPC had pursued the proceedings diligently and in good faith, the High Court allowed the application, permitting the challenge to proceed.
Delhi High Court Moves Interim Relief Plea From Court To Arbitration Forum After Parties Consent
Case Title : IPEX Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. Krishna Constructions & Ors.
Case Number : O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 492/2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 103
The Delhi High Court has moved a plea for interim relief out of the courtroom and into arbitration after the parties agreed that their dispute should be resolved through arbitration. Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar was hearing a petition arising from a Memorandum of Understanding dated 3 November 2025 between IPEX Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and Krishna Constructions, in which interim protection was sought. Upon the parties' consent, the Court referred the dispute to arbitration and appointed Senior Advocate Vibha Mahajan Seth, empanelled with the Delhi International Arbitration Centre, as the sole arbitrator. The arbitration will be conducted under the center's rules.
Case Title : National Highways Authority of India v. Kochi Aroor Tollways Pvt Ltd
Case Number : O.M.P. (COMM) 170/2019
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 100
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a challenge by the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) against an arbitral award granted to Kochi Aroor Tollways Private Limited (KATPL), upholding a compensation amount of approximately ₹12.18 crores. The award addressed losses KATPL sustained on the Edapally–Vyttila–Aroor road stretch in Kerala, specifically due to incorrectly fixed toll rates, delays in declaring the Commercial Operation Date, and the costs associated with issuing free monthly passes to locals.
The Court observed that the "Arbitral Tribunal has correctly come to the conclusion that the user fee rates notified by NHAI were not in accordance with the provisions of the Concession Agreement read with 2008 Rules and the Amendment Rules of 2011. Hence, Arbitral Tribunal worked out the user fee rates in accordance with the Concession Agreement. The finding of the Arbitral Tribunal is based on the contractual framework between the parties read with the relevant Rules and does not disclose any perversity or patent illegality".
Arbitral Tribunal Is A 'Creature of Contract': Delhi High Court Upholds ₹25 Lakh Award To Carlsberg
Case Title : Pali Hills Breweries Private Limited v. Carlsberg India Private Limited
Case Number : O.M.P. (COMM) 595/2020, I.A. 12441/2020, I.A. 12442/2020, I.A. 12443/2020, I.A. 1083/2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 68
The Delhi High Court has upheld an arbitral award directing Pali Hills Breweries Pvt. Ltd. to pay Rs 25 lakh to Carlsberg India Private Limited under a brewing contract, while partly allowing the company's challenge by setting aside the arbitrator's rejection of its storage-rent claim. The court held that the amount was a genuine estimate of loss agreed to by the parties. Justice Jasmeet Singh said the High Court could not step in to re-decide the dispute or re-examine the evidence. He said the court's role is limited and it cannot sit as an appeal court over an arbitral tribunal.
The court noted that the arbitral tribunal gets its authority from the contract signed by the parties and must decide the dispute within the limits of that contract. “The Tribunal is a creature of contract and is bound by the circumscribing limits of the terms of the Contract. It is upon the Tribunal to interpret the terms of the contract. The Tribunal, in the present case, has interpreted the amount of Rs. 25 lakhs as reasonable compensation,” the court said.
Delhi High Court Sets Aside Arbitration Against Bhushan Steel Following Tata Steel Takeover
Case Title: Tata Steel Limited v. Ministry of Corporate Affairs & Anr.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 10431/2020 & CM APPL. 33016/2020
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 32
The Delhi High Court set aside an arbitral tribunal order that allowed arbitration to continue against Tata Steel, formerly Bhushan Steel, even after its resolution plan under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code was approved. A single-judge bench of Justice Amit Sharma allowed Tata Steel's writ petition and quashed the tribunal's October 7, 2020 order. The court said that once a resolution plan is approved, it binds all creditors.
“The Resolution Plan had attained finality and would be binding in terms of Section 31(1) of the IBC,” the court said. Allowing arbitration on such claims, the court said, would undermine the IBC's objective of giving the successful resolution applicant a clean or “fresh slate.” The court noted that the resolution plan had specifically dealt with sub judice and contingent claims and assigned them a liquidation value of nil. Calling the arbitral tribunal's decision to continue the proceedings “patently illegal,” the court said the treatment of claims falls within the commercial wisdom of the committee of creditors and cannot be reopened.
Case Title: Black Gold Resources Private Limitada v. International Coal Ventures Pvt. Ltd & Anr
Case Number: O.M.P. (I) (COMM) 78/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 41
The Delhi High Court has reiterated that an unconditional performance bank guarantee can be invoked even if the contractor disputes the legality of the contract's termination, an issue the court said must be decided in arbitration. A single-judge bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh relied on precedents set by the apex court to hold that it cannot go into such questions while deciding a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The Court clarified that it cannot go into the legality of termination at the interim stage. “This Court today in a Section 9 petition cannot adjudicate whether the termination of the Contract was right or wrong or whether the respondent No. 2 was entitled to recover the overburden charges already paid, as such issues touch the merit of the matter and are for the Arbitral Tribunal to decide,” Justice Singh observed.
Case Title: Om Prakash v. Smt Laxmi Maurya
Case Number: FAO (COMM) 57/2023, CM APPL. 11061/2023, CM APPL. 11062/2023
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 54
The Delhi High Court has held that mere delay in pronouncement of an arbitral award does not by itself suffice to set it aside under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ("Arbitration Act") unless the delay is undue, unexplained and demonstrably prejudicial to the parties. The Delhi High Court has held that a delay in the pronouncement of an arbitral award is not enough to set it aside, unless the delay is undue, unexplained and demonstrably prejudicial to the parties.
A Division Bench comprising of Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Amit Mahajan dismissed an appeal filed under section 37 of the Arbitration Act read with section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, thereby upholding an arbitral award directing repayment of a friendly loan along with interest. It further observed that the burden to prove repayment lay on the appellant who failed to produce any receipts or documentary evidence. On the objection regarding unregistered and insufficiently stamped mortgage deeds, the court observed that even assuming that the registration was mandatory, the documents could still be relied upon for collateral purposes under section 49 of the Registration Act.
Case Title: Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited v. Delkon India Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number: FAO (COMM) 109/2023
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 36
In a dispute involving public sector undertaking Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited, the Delhi High Court set aside a ₹66.50 lakh interest component of an arbitral award that had directed BHEL to pay Delkon India Private Limited. A division bench of Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Vinod Kumar ruled that the contractual bar on interest was binding and could not be bypassed by classifying claims as arising from termination rather than from the contract.
The bench observed that arbitral discretion to award interest operates subject to the agreement between the parties and that, once interest is expressly excluded, the arbitrator has no authority to grant it for the period before the award. At the same time, the court declined to interfere with the compensation awarded on Delkon's counterclaims. It reiterated that where loss is established but precise proof of the amount is difficult, an arbitrator is entitled to adopt a reasonable estimation method, provided the compensation is not arbitrary.
Case Title: National Highways Authority of India v. Roadway Solutions India Infra Limited
Case Number: FAO(OS) (COMM) 4/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 44
The Delhi High Court, while hearing an appeal under Section 37(1)(b), observed that an injunction granted by the Section 9 (power to grant interim measures) court ought not to have been granted. This injunction had restrained the National Highway Authorities of India (NHAI) from proceeding in furtherance of its notice of intention to terminate, dated 23.12.2025.
Section 37(1)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the Act), provides a right to appeal to the competent court against a court order that either grants or refuses to grant interim measures under Section 9 of the Act, which deals with interim relief during arbitration proceedings The bench further observed that Section 41 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, fetters the Court's power to grant an injunction, and Section 20A of the Act mandates that an injunction cannot be granted if it would delay the progress of an infrastructural development. The bench observed that the balance of convenience lies in favour of the nation and its citizen and therefore in NHAI, because the citizens cannot be deprived of a well-constructed highway to ensure smooth and free movement.
Case Title: JLT Energy 9 SAS v. Hindustan Cleanenergy Limited & Ors. and connected matters
Case Numbers: O.M.P.(I) (Comm.) 464/2025 and O.M.P.(I) (Comm.) 489/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 14
The Delhi High Court has refused to restrain Hindustan Cleanenergy Limited and its group companies from creating third-party rights in two solar power projects in Tamil Nadu and Bihar, holding that the share purchase agreements signed with a French investor had already come to an end on their own terms. Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, in an order dated January 6, 2026, said courts cannot use interim powers to keep a contract alive when the agreement itself provides for its termination When such a clause is triggered, unsigned emails and draft proposals cannot be used to suggest that the deal still survives.
“Effect must be given to the word 'automatic' as it appears in Clause 5.6. If contingencies and carve-outs were to be read between the stage of a CP(s) not being fulfilled on CLSD and that of termination of the said Agreement, the word “automatic” would lose its meaning", the court said.
“It would be unwise to rewrite the terms of the contract,” the court observed, adding that this was a commercial transaction deliberately structured to collapse if approvals were not obtained. Once the long stop date passed, the agreement had a built-in “self-collapsing mechanism,” and there was nothing left for the court to preserve.
'Full and Final' Settlement Does Not Bar Arbitration On Fresh Disputes: Delhi High Court Reiterates
Case Title : Ashutosh Infra Pvt. Ltd. v. Pebble Downtown India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Case Number : ARB.P. 1294/2023; O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 152/2023
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 55
The Delhi High Court has reiterated that a “full and final” settlement does not automatically bar arbitration if fresh disputes arise from the settlement's implementation and the parties have agreed to arbitrate such disputes. A single-judge bench of Justice Jyoti Singh ruled that an arbitration clause incorporated in a settlement agreement and reflected in a consent award constitutes a valid arbitration agreement under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The court clarified that “execution of a full and final settlement may not preclude a party from taking recourse to arbitration if a dispute arises from the settlement itself,” This is particularly where the parties have expressly agreed to resolve future disputes through arbitration.
Case Title : Prasar Bharati v. Stracon India Ltd & Anr.; Stracon India Ltd v. Prasar Bharati
Case Number : FAO(OS) (COMM) 132/2020 and FAO(OS) (COMM) 179/2020 (with connected applications)
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 75
The Delhi High Court has dismissed cross-appeals by Prasar Bharati and Stracon India Ltd, an overseas sports marketing company, upholding a single judge's ruling that only seven days of international cricket were missing under their BCCI broadcast marketing contract, and not seventeen as awarded by the arbitrator. A Division Bench of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Madhu Jain agreed with the Single Judge that the arbitrator had wrongly excluded a 10-day India–Australia–New Zealand Triangular Series while calculating the shortfall.
The Division Bench rejected both sides' challenges. It refused to accept Prasar Bharati's attempt to rely on definitions from its separate agreement with the BCCI. "Unlike the BCCI Agreement, the Global Rights Agreement did not define the term "Cricket Season". It did not even state that as the Agreement was being executed in the middle of a Cricket Season, there shall be a proportionate reduction of the number of days ofnInternational Cricket for the first season. The definition of Cricket Season from the BCCI Agreement therefore, cannot be imported into the Global Rights Agreement to modify the terms thereof,” the court said.
Delhi High Court Orders Perjury Complaint Against Walmark Officials In Fortis Arbitration Case
Case Title : Walmark Holdings Limited v. Fortis Healthcare Limited
Case Number : CRL.M.A. 11201/2020 in O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 170/2019
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 64
The Delhi High Court has directed its Registrar General to lodge a criminal complaint for perjury against two officials of Walmark Holdings Limited for making false statements and swearing affidavits before the court in an arbitration-related dispute with Fortis Healthcare Limited. The court held that this was a fit case to invoke its powers under the Criminal Procedure Code for making false statements and swearing affidavits.
The court held that this was a fit case to invoke its powers under the Criminal Procedure Code for making false statements and swearing affidavits. The case concerned a draft term sheet dated December 6th, 2017. Walmark relied on the document while seeking interim reliefs against Fortis in proceedings under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The High Court held that a case had been made out for invoking its jurisdiction under Section 340 of the Criminal Procedure Code. It directed the Registrar General to lodge a formal complaint before the concerned Judicial Magistrate within four weeks.
Delhi High Court Appoints Arbitrator After Earlier Plea Before UP Court Was Withdrawn
Case Title : Mr. Mohd. Khalid v. M/S Jai Mata Di Packaging Through Its Partners & Ors.
Case Number : ARB.P. 1115/2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 60
The Delhi High Court has recently allowed a plea to appoint an arbitrator in a dispute between partners of a firm, rejecting an objection that sought to block the case by relying on an earlier, abandoned court proceeding. Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar said the objection under Section 42 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act could not succeed because the earlier case filed in another court had been withdrawn without any decision. Section 42 is meant to prevent different courts from hearing the same arbitration dispute. It says that once one court has taken up the matter, other courts should not deal with it. The court clarified that this rule applies only when a court has actually taken up and dealt with the case.
“A withdrawn petition cannot be equated with a decided or pending application. To hold otherwise would be to confer upon an abandoned proceeding a jurisdiction-creating effect, which Section 42 neither contemplates nor permits. Jurisdiction under Section 42 crystallises only when a court validly assumes seisin; it does not survive the abandonment of proceedings by the party who invoked the court‟s jurisdiction in the first place.”
Arbitrator Cannot Grant Claims Contrary To Clear Contract Terms, Delhi High Court Reiterates
Case Title : Jay Gee Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. Indraprastha Power Generation Co. Ltd.
Case Number : FAO(OS) 223/2010
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 50
The Delhi High Court, reiterating a settled law, has said that additional compensation cannot be granted where a claim runs contrary to clear contractual terms, even if an arbitrator has allowed it. Holding so, The court granted relief to Indraprastha Power Generation by setting aside portions of the arbitral award that were contrary to the contract with Jay Gee Construction A Division Bench of Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar observed that an arbitral tribunal cannot grant relief by ignoring express provisions agreed upon between the parties.
Case Title : Delhi Jal Board v. M/S Mohini Electricals Ltd
Case Number : FAO(OS)(COMM) 210/2022 & CM APPL. 36624/2022
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 46
The Delhi High Court has held that financing charges under a FIDIC-based construction contract can be claimed only on amounts that are formally certified or have clearly become payable under the contract, and not on disputed or unverified claims. A Division Bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla partly allowed an appeal filed by the Delhi Jal Board against a Single Judge order that had upheld an arbitral award in favour of Mohini Electricals Ltd., setting aside the portion of the award that granted financing charges on uncertified claims.
The court said an arbitrator cannot ignore mandatory payment conditions written into the contract. "Self-serving documents, unsupported by corroborative proof, cannot be treated as evidence of actual expenditure. Reliance on such material renders the impugned award unsupported by evidence and squarely places it within the category of a finding based on “no evidence,” the bench said.
Case Title: Natasha Oberoi v. Rajaraman Shankar & Ors.
Case Number: O.M.P. (I) (COMM.) 373/2025 & I.A. 22577-78/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 47
A single judge bench of Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav said that arbitration requires clear and demonstrable consent. The court observed that "Thus, the mere existence of a document, despite it containing an arbitration clause, and persons, even if they are party to it, would not qualify as an ―arbitration agreement‖ unless it is signed by the parties, including the party seeking to invoke the clause as also the party against whom enforcement is sought." “The naming of an interested party as an adjudicator between the parties,” the court said, “may be an indication of the clause not intending to be a binding process to decide their substantive rights and liabilities, but an in-house, pre-escalation, resolution-oriented mechanism.” On these findings, the High Court dismissed the petition, holding that there was no valid arbitration agreement and that interim relief under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act was not available.
Case Title: SJVN Ltd. v. Patel Gammon Joint Venture
Case Number: O.M.P. (COMM) 9/2017
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 15
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a petition filed by SJVN Limited challenging an arbitral award that granted payment to Patel Gammon Joint Venture for transporting excavated material during a hydroelectric project in Himachal Pradesh.
The Delhi High Court single-judge bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh upheld the substance of the arbitral award but held that the court lacked territorial jurisdiction to entertain the challenge under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Justice Singh reiterated that courts do not sit in appeal over arbitral awards and that the scope of interference under Section 34 is very "narrow.” On jurisdiction, the court said the contract conferred exclusive jurisdiction on courts in Himachal Pradesh. Since the arbitration clause provided for multiple venues, including Delhi, the judge held that Delhi could not be treated as the juridical seat of arbitration.
Case Title : Ansal Housing Limited v. SS Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd. & Anr with Connected Matter
Case Number : O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 43/2026 & 44/2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 168
The Delhi High Court has recently ruled that when an umbrella agreement fixes a venue in one city but expressly confers jurisdiction on courts in another, the jurisdiction clause will prevail unless the parties clearly alter the juridical seat for the entire transaction.
Dismissing two petitions filed by Ansal Housing Limited seeking interim relief under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar ruled that courts at Meerut, and not Delhi, had territorial jurisdiction.
Explaining the principle, the Court observed, “Where the umbrella agreement consciously designates a venue in one city and subjects itself to the jurisdiction of courts in another, the latter cannot be eclipsed absent a clear and unequivocal stipulation altering the juridical seat for the entire transaction"
No Concluded Contract, No Interim Relief: Delhi High Court Dismisses Developer's Plea Against ARCIL
Case Title : Parsvnath Developers Limited & Ors. v. Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited & Ors.
Case Number : O.M.P. (I) (COMM) 330/2025 & O.M.P. (I) (COMM) 367/2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 171
The Delhi High Court has dismissed Parsvnath Developers' plea seeking enforcement of an alleged Rs. 750 crore restructuring agreement against Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited, holding that courts cannot compel parties to honour a settlement that never matured into a concluded contract.
Justice Jasmeet Singh held that the draft restructuring agreement remained at a negotiatory stage. Although drafts were exchanged, essential terms were unsettled. The schedules were marked preliminary and subject to internal approval. Several material particulars were left blank.
In these circumstances, the court held, “In the absence of a concluded agreement, the foundational basis for the reliefs sought in the present petition collapses
Delhi High Court Reiterates Referral Court Cannot Limit Arbitrator To Specific Claims
Case Title : Puri Constructions Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. Larsen & Toubro Ltd.
Case Number : ARB.P. 1610/2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 119
The Delhi High Court recently reiterated that a Referral Court under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, cannot dictate which disputes an arbitrator should hear. Its role is limited to appointing an arbitrator, leaving all substantive claims and defences for the arbitrator to decide. Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar imposed costs of Rs. 50,000 on Puri Constructions, the petitioner, for attempting to restrict the arbitration to selective claims while appointing Hon'ble Justice Mukul Mudgal (Retired) as the sole arbitrator in its long-standing dispute with Larsen & Toubro (L&T). The Bench held: “The queue for justice stretches several decades, and Counsel and litigants who can afford to litigate endlessly, in the opinion of this Court, would need a timely reminder to respect the cause of justice to all litigants and cooperate with the judicial system.”
Case Title : Fresh and Healthy Enterprise Ltd v. Global AgriSystem Pvt Ltd & connected matter
Case Number : O.M.P. (COMM) 174/2016 & O.M.P. (COMM) 181/2016
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 140
The Delhi High Court on 11 February upheld an arbitral award directing Fresh and Healthy Enterprises Ltd (FHEL) to pay over Rs. 80 lakh in damages to Global AgriSystem Pvt Ltd (GAPL) for failure to maintain agreed storage conditions, while also confirming FHEL's entitlement to over Rs. 87 lakh towards rental and handling charges.
A Single Bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh dismissed cross-petitions filed by both companies, while reiterated that courts exercising jurisdiction under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 cannot reassess factual findings of an arbitral tribunal if they represent a reasonable and plausible view.
Justice Singh held: "The findings of the Sole Arbitrator are a reasonable and plausible view and this Court under Section 34 petition is not to reassess the findings on facts if the same are reasonable". Finding no perversity in the Arbitrator's factual assessment, the Court held that the award was neither “in contravention with the public policy of India” nor “patently illegal.”
Case Title : Hala Kamel Zabal v. Arya Trading Ltd & Ors.
Case Number : FAO(OS)(COMM) 230/2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 120
The Delhi High Court has refused to set aside a 2012 arbitral award after a shareholder argued that the arbitrator was wrongly appointed by the High Court instead of the Supreme Court in an international commercial arbitration. Rejecting the challenge, the court held that the Arbitration and Conciliation Act does not permit annulment of an award merely because of a dispute over which court appointed the arbitrator.
"Section 34(2)(a)(v) does not contemplate the setting aside of an arbitral award solely on the ground that the arbitrator was appointed by an authority allegedly lacking competence. The said provision is narrowly tailored and permits interference only where the composition of the arbitral tribunal or the arbitral procedure was not in accordance with the agreement of the parties, unless such agreement itself is in conflict with a non-derogable provision of Part I of the A&C Act. In the absence of such a conflict, irregularities, if any, in the appointment process do not, ipso facto, vitiate the arbitral award,” the court said.
Case Title : Airports Authority of India v. URC Construction (P) Ltd
Case Number : O.M.P. (COMM) 348/2019
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 146
The Delhi High Court dismissed a challenge by the Airports Authority of India (AAI) and upheld an arbitral award directing it to pay Rs. 2.57 Crore with interest and Rs 7 lakh as costs to URC Construction (P) Ltd. The Court held that the 477-day delay in constructing a new control tower-cum-technical block at Mangalore International Airport was attributable to AAI.
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna held that the arbitrator's findings were based on a detailed analysis of the record and could not be interfered with under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. “The conclusion that the delay of 477 days was attributable to the Petitioner is based on a detailed analysis of the hindrance register, site constraints, and the conduct of the parties. This finding is neither perverse nor illegal,” the Court observed.
Case Title : Dusters Total Solutions Services Pvt. Ltd. v. All India Institute of Medical Sciences
Case Number : FAO (COMM) 132/2024
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 121
The Delhi High Court has upheld an arbitral award permitting the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, to encash 50% of a contractor's Performance Bank Guarantee after short payment of wages to sanitation workers was established. A Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Amit Mahajan held that neither the arbitral award nor the district court's order dismissing objections to it suffered from perversity or patent illegality warranting interference. The court noted that the contractor, Dusters Total Solutions Services Pvt. Ltd., failed to ensure full payment of wages to its workers. The sanitation workers were deployed at AIIMS under the outsourcing contract, though they were formally employed by the contractor. This exposed AIIMS to statutory liability under Section 21(4) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. The provision makes the principal employer responsible for paying the full wages, or any unpaid balance, if the contractor fails to do so. Upholding the arbitral tribunal's reasoning, the bench observed that permitting partial encashment of the performance security reflected an effort “to balance contractual consequences with the nature and gravity of the breaches established on record”.
Delhi High Court Sets Aside Part Of Arbitral Award Over 'Cryptic Observations'
Case Title : Gorkha Security Services v. Directorate of Health Services
Case Number : O.M.P. (COMM) 453/2017
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 105
The Delhi High Court recently held that an arbitral tribunal cannot reject a claim through "cryptic" reasoning and that such an award is open to interference even within the limited scope of review under arbitration law. The matter was decided by Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, who emphasised that giving reasons is a core requirement of arbitral decision-making. “The insistence on reasons is not a mere empty formality,” the Court said, adding that reasons must show how the decision-maker moved from facts to conclusions. The court noted that the arbitrator did not analyze any contractual provision or explain how such a gap defeated the claim. “Such cryptic observations, unsupported by intelligible reasoning, render the findings opaque and unintelligible,” the Court held. Applying the doctrine of severability, the court set aside only the portion of the award denying interest and costs, left the Rs 3.48 crore award intact, and remanded the limited issue to the arbitral tribunal for fresh consideration.
Case Title : Avneet Soni v. Kavita Agarwal
Case Number : EX.P. 386/2015
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 108
The Delhi High Court has imposed Rs 1 lakh in costs on a litigant for what it called a “calculated attempt” to stall enforcement of a decade-old arbitral award. Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar dismissed the objection application, holding that repeated attempts to delay execution, as in the present case, cannot be justified as an exercise of legal rights. The court underscored that the award, passed on December 31, 2014, had already attained finality. “The approach adopted by the Objector reflects a calculated attempt to obstruct and delay the enforcement of a decree which has already been conclusively adjudicated and is legally binding. Such conduct, if condoned, undermines the efficacy of judicial processes and the faith of litigants in the rule of law,” the bench said. “Repeated invocation of the same ground, more than ten years after the filing of the Execution Petition and over eleven years after the Award was rendered, cannot be regarded as a genuine or bona fide exercise of legal rights. Rather, it reflects a deliberate attempt to obstruct the enforcement of a valid and binding arbitral award, thereby clogging the machinery of justice,” the Court further held.
Delhi High Court Rejects Reliance Industries' Objections To Centre's Appeal In $3.86 Billion Dispute
Case Title : Union of India v. Reliance Industries Ltd. & Anr.
Case Number : EFA(OS)(COMM) 19/2023
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 11
The Delhi High Court on Monday ruled that the Centre's appeal against the refusal to enforce a foreign arbitral award in a $3.86 billion dispute with Reliance Industries can proceed. The court rejected RIL's objections to the Centre's appeal against a single judge order refusing to enforce the foreign arbitral award. The dispute relates to production sharing contracts for the Tapti and Panna Mukta oil and gas fields and a claim of USD 3,856,734,582. A Division Bench of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Madhu Jain held that an order declining enforcement of a foreign arbitral award falls under Section 48 of the Act and is appealable under Section 50. The Bench said, "The words of the legislature must be construed in their natural meaning, without adding or subtracting therefrom. Applying the above test, the words of Section 50(1)(b) of the A&C Act provide for an appeal against the order of a court refusing to enforce a Foreign Award under Section 48 of the A&C Act, which is the case in hand. Therefore, the present appeal is maintainable
Expiry Of Arbitrator's Mandate Due To Lapse Of Time Does Not End Arbitration: Delhi High Court
Case Title : M/s Telexcell Information Systems Limited v Tata Advanced Systems Limited
Case Number : O.M.P (MISC.)(COMM.) 832/2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 177
The Delhi High Court has observed that when an arbitrator's mandate expires due to lapse of time, it does not amount to termination of proceedings under Section 32, Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
A Single-Judge Bench of Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar additionally held that the expiry of mandate by lapse of time is curable and extended the arbitrator's mandate for a further period of six months from the date of the order for making the arbitral award.
The Court noted “...that both parties are ad idem that the pleadings in the arbitration stand completed and that the matter has reached the stage of evidence. In such circumstances, the interests of justice would be better served by facilitating the continuation and culmination of the arbitral proceedings rather than relegating the parties to a fresh round of litigation.”
Delhi High Court Sets Aside Award Ordering Yamaha To Repurchase Unsold Dealership Stock
Case Title : Divya Ashish Jamwal v. India Yamaha Motor Pvt Ltd
Case Number : FAO(OS) (COMM) 363/2019
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 189
Holding that an arbitral tribunal cannot “rewrite the bargain between the parties” or grant relief contrary to the contract, the Delhi High Court on Tuesday upheld the setting aside of an award that had directed India Yamaha Motor Pvt. Ltd. to take back unsold dealership stock and refund its price with 16% annual interest.
Dismissing the dealer's appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, a Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetrapal and Amit Mahajan held that the arbitral award had travelled beyond the terms of the Dealership Agreement.
“The learned Single Judge was justified in holding that the Arbitral Award travelled beyond the terms of the Agreement. The direction to refund the price of stock along with interest was not founded on any contractual stipulation and was premised on considerations extraneous to the Agreement,” the Court observed.
Case Title : Geniemode Global Pvt. Ltd. v. Priyanka Impex Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
Case Number : O.M.P. (MISC.) (COMM.) 150/2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 192
The Delhi High Court recently reiterated that once a dispute is taken to a Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council under the MSMED Act, jurisdiction to entertain challenges arising from those proceedings lies with courts at the location of the Council where the supplier is situated, even if the contract names a different arbitration seat.
Dismissing the petition for want of territorial jurisdiction, Justice Jasmeet Singh held,"Since it is the Facilitation Council at Panchkula, Haryana which has dealt with the issue in controversy, appointed the Arbitrator, conducted the arbitration proceedings, applying the principles of Harcharan Dass Gupta (supra) and Mahakali Foods (supra) as discussed above, is the Courts at the location of Facilitation Council where the supplier is located which will have jurisdiction. This Court lacks the jurisdiction to entertain and try the present petition."
Case Title : Railways Board, Ministry of Railways v. Titagarh Rail Systems Limited
Case Number : O.M.P. (COMM) 475/2024
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 202
The Delhi High Court has set aside a ₹5.19 crore arbitral award against the Railways Board after the Railways challenged the legality of the sole arbitrator it had appointed. The Court held that appointing a serving railway officer as arbitrator, without an express written waiver by both parties, rendered the award void from the beginning.
Allowing a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Justice Avneesh Jhingan held, “The appointment of a serving employee as an arbitrator falls within the teeth of Section 12(5) read with Schedule VII of the Act. The appointment being void ab initio rendered impugned award nullity.”
“In none of the documents relied upon there is an express agreement in writing waiving the rigours of Section 12(5). The short-listing of two names from the four names proposed by the petitioner cannot be considered to be compliance and the waiver has to be specific and not to be implied from conduct,” the Court observed. Holding that statutory ineligibility strikes at the root of jurisdiction and cannot be cured by participation in proceedings, the Court declared the appointment void ab initio and set aside the award.
Case Title : Zreyah Semiconductors Pvt. Ltd. v. Oyo Hotels and Homes Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : O.M.P. (COMM) 249/2023 & I.A. 14284/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 107
The Delhi High Court has ruled in favour of OYO Hotels and Homes Pvt. Ltd. in a dispute over the supply of electronic switches. The Court upheld an arbitral award directing Zreyah Semiconductors Private Limited to deliver 11,000 switches to OYO and refund Rs 2.84 crore with interest. It said the arbitrator's conclusions were plausible and did not call for interference. The case was heard by Justice Avneesh Jhingan. The court agreed with the arbitrator's reading of the contract. It refused to re-examine the evidence. “The finding recorded by the arbitrator suffers from no factual or legal error much less perversity,” the court said. The court also noted that no switches were supplied at all. In those circumstances, there was no contractual basis for demanding a full advance. Finding no patent illegality or perversity, the court dismissed Zreyah's petition and upheld the arbitral award.
Case Title : Steel Authority Of India Limited Versus M/S Primetals Technologies India Pvt. Limited
Case Number : O.M.P. (COMM) 451/2023 & I.A. 21931/2023
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 190
Reiterating that courts cannot rewrite commercial contracts while exercising jurisdiction under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the Delhi High Court has upheld an arbitral award directing Steel Authority of India Ltd (SAIL) to refund Rs. 1.40 crore deducted from a contractor's final bill over an alleged shortfall in Minimum Guaranteed CENVAT Credit (MGCC).
Justice Avneesh Jhingan held that interpretation of contractual clauses lies within the domain of the arbitral tribunal and a court under Section 34 cannot sit in appeal over a plausible view taken by the arbitrator.
“The award was passed after considering the relevant clauses of the contract. The interpretation by the arbitrator is not only plausible but in the absence of any clause providing for deduction on account of shortfall in MGCC, is the only interpretation possible,” the Court observed.
Case Title : Union of India v. M/s Rama Constructions Company
Case Number : O.M.P. (COMM) 312/2020
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 201
The Delhi High Court on 25 February, upheld an arbitral award granting Rs. 80.05 lakh along with 10% interest to Rama Constructions Company in a dispute arising from civil and electrical works executed at the Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium Complex, New Delhi.
Dismissing the Union of India's challenge, Justice Jasmeet Singh reiterated the limited scope of judicial interference, noting that the Arbitrator's findings were evidence-based and did not warrant interference under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Justice Singh observed:
“I am of the view, that the contention of the petitioner that the said claim was adjudicated by the Arbitrator in contravention of the Contract Agreement and is consequently perverse, cuts no ice. The Arbitrator has carefully undertaken a fact grounded appreciation of the entire claim and material placed on record. Be that as it may, in proceedings under Section 34 of the Act, such a fact based and evidence driven determination is entitled to be upheld.”
Delhi High Court Sets Aside Rs 11.93 Crore Damages In Favour Of ONGC For Lack Of Proof Of Loss
Case Title : UEM India Pvt. Ltd. v. ONGC Limited
Case Number : O.M.P. (COMM) 393/2018
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 310
The Delhi High Court has struck down an award of Rs 11.93 crore in additional damages granted to ONGC Limited against UEM India Pvt. Ltd., finding that the arbitral tribunal fixed the amount without any proof of actual loss, without even recording that such loss was incapable of proof, and without explaining how the figure was arrived at. A bench of Justice Avneesh Jhingan held that the award violated the requirement of a reasoned decision under Section 31(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The court observed:
“In absence of a proof of actual damages and without recording a finding that actual damages could not be proved the tribunal proceeded to conclude that 10% of the contract value shall be a reasonable damages to be awarded over and above the LD. The basis for quantification is missing and the awarding of damages is vitiated for violating Section 31(3) of the Act whereby a reasoned award is to be passed.”.
Delhi High Court Declines Interference With Arbitral Award In TDI-DMRC Advertising Rights Dispute
Case Title : TDI International India Ltd Versus Delhi Metro Rail Corporation
Case Number : O.M.P. (COMM) 69/2017
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 212
The Delhi High Court on 24 February dismissed a petition filed by TDI International India Ltd., challenging an arbitral award in a dispute with Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC), holding that no grounds existed for interference under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act).
Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar observed: “...the grant of an ad hoc remission of 50% of the licence fee for the uninstalled area represents an exercise of contractual interpretation and factual appreciation. This Court is unable to hold that such an approach is perverse or patently illegal, or that it contravenes the public policy of India.”
Case Title : Renaissance Buildcon Company Pvt Ltd & Ors. v. Tarjinder Kumar Bansal & Ors.
Case Number : CONT.CAS (C) 802/2021
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 234
The Delhi High Court on 5 February held that parties cannot bypass the arbitral process by approaching the High Court directly for alleged violation of an interim order passed by an arbitral tribunal. Any contempt proceedings must follow the procedural framework under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Justice Saurabh Banerjee dismissed a contempt petition filed by Renaissance Buildcon Company Pvt Ltd and its directors, while noting that the respondents, Tarjinder Kumar Bansal and other former directors and associated persons, were accused of breaching the arbitral tribunal's interim orders.
The Bench held:
“Since the interim order dated 18.07.2015 was passed by the learned Sole Arbitrator under Section 17(1) of the A&C Act in the course of the arbitral proceedings, the petitioners cannot approach this Court by way of the present petition for any contempt thereof. The appropriate remedy under Section 27(5) of the A&C Act would lie before the learned Sole Arbitrator, who upon satisfaction, may make a reference for contempt before this Court.”
Case Title : Khurana Educational Society (Regd.) Versus Smt. Shashi Bala
Case Number : ARB. A. (COMM.) 71/2025 & I.A. 32778/2025 (Stay)
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 236
The Delhi High Court has observed that interim relief under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is meant to preserve the fruits of arbitration and cannot be used to secure a claimant against speculative future contingencies.
Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar in a judgment delivered on February 26, observed:
“Section 17 of the A&C Act is designed to preserve the fruits of arbitration where a real and imminent risk is established; it is not intended to secure a claimant against speculative future contingencies. The record does not disclose any material indicating dissipation of assets, imminent frustration of enforcement, or any circumstance warranting such intrusive financial directions."
Case Title : Sadguru Engineers And Allied Services Pvt Ltd Versus National Highways Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd Represented By Its Managing Director & Ors.
Case Number : O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 18/2026 & I.A. 1378/2026 (Ex.)
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 211
The Delhi High Court has held that a determinable contract cannot be protected against termination. However, interim relief under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 can be granted to stay encashment of conditional bank guarantees if the proposed invocation is prima facie not traceable to the contract.
Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar passed the order in a petition filed by Sadguru Engineers and Allied Services Pvt Ltd against National Highways Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd.
"The raison d'être of Section 9 of the A&C Act is to preserve and protect the subject matter of the dispute in the interregnum, so that the arbitral proceedings, when commenced, are not rendered nugatory. The power vested with the Courts under Section 9 is thus essentially protective and facilitative in character, intended to safeguard and secure the efficacy of the arbitral process and not to supplant it", the court observed
Case Title : Jiostar India Pvt. Ltd. v. Absolute Legends Sports Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
Case Number : O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 88/2026 (along with I.A. 6052/2026 & I.A. 6053/2026)
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 276
The Delhi High Court refrained from granting interim relief to Jiostar India Pvt. Ltd. in its dispute with Absolute Legends Sports Pvt. Ltd., the company that runs the Legends League Cricket tournament, over media and commercial rights linked to the league. A single-judge bench of Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar instead asked the parties to attempt a settlement through mediation after both the parties agreed to the same. "Acceding to the same, the matter is referred to Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre (“Mediation Centre”) and the parties are directed to appear through their respective counsel before the Mediation Centre on 13.03.2026."
Case Title : RPG Cables Limited v BSNL
Case Number : O.M.P. (COMM) 76/2017
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 280
The Delhi High Court refused to interfere with an arbitral award allowing counterclaims to BSNL amounting to Rs. 12.63 crores in a dispute arising out of supply of optical fibre cables, holding that the supplier remained bound by its assurance regarding the life of the cables A single bench of Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar observed that when the supplier had assured that the life of the cables supplied by it was 32.8 years, which was beyond the tender requirement of 20 years then it was bound by the assurance. The court held that the arbitrator was correct in holding that “The mere expiry of the warranty period could not absolve the Petitioner of its responsibility in respect of the defective cables, particularly when the failure occurred much prior to the assured life period.”
Case Title : JSW Ispat Steel Limited (Now Known As JSW Steel Limited) Versus M/S Gas Authority Of India Limited
Case Number : FAO(OS)(COMM) 4/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 260
The Delhi High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by JSW Steel, formerly known as JSW Ispat Steel, and upheld the setting aside of an arbitral award passed in its favour, holding that the arbitral tribunal had rewritten the contract by applying the doctrine of business efficacy to convert fixed transportation charges into variable charges. A Division Bench of Justices C. Hari Shankar and Om Prakash Shukla observed, "Upon careful examination of the arbitral award, it is evident that the reasoning adopted by the tribunal represents a misapplication of the business efficacy principle in a manner that no reasonable person could have adopted. It is undisputed that in the present matter, Clause 4.03 of the contract was amended in 1998, replacing the earlier variable monthly service charge with a fixed transportation cost of Rs. 38,67,600/-"
Case Title : Supermint Exports Pvt Ltd v New India Assurance Company Ltd & Ors
Case Number : FAO(OS)(COMM) 286/2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 261
The Delhi High Court on Monday observed that a discharge voucher accepting an insurance settlement cannot be invalidated merely because the insured signed it under financial pressure, unless the insurer contributed to the alleged coercion, duress, or undue influence. Refusing to reopen a fire-insurance compensation dispute between Supermint Exports Pvt Ltd and New India Assurance Company Ltd, the Court upheld an arbitral award rejecting the company's attempt to claim additional compensation after it had accepted Rs 12.18 crore as “full and final settlement." “It has to be borne in mind that the decision to sign an unconditional no claim discharge voucher is ultimately of the signatory. The mere fact that the signatory may feel financial pressure, and therefore decide to sign the discharge voucher, would not ipso facto render the voucher unenforceable on the ground of fraud, coercion, undue influence, or even compulsion. Absent any contribution to the financial distress, even remote, by the opposite party, the compulsion and duress, if any, arises out of the claimant's own subjective decision, and the claimant cannot be permitted to take advantage thereof, to the prejudice of the opposite party", it held.
Delhi High Court Grants Interim Relief To Jiostar In Legends League Cricket Media Rights Dispute
Case Title : Jiostar India Pvt. Ltd. v. Ms Absolute Legends Sports Private Limited & Anr.
Case Number : O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 88/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 286
The Delhi High Court has granted interim relief restraining Absolute Legends Sports Private Limited and another from transferring, assigning, or creating any third-party rights in the media and commercial rights relating to the Legends League Cricket Master T20 tournament, in a dispute with Jiostar India Pvt. Ltd., pending arbitration proceedings Referring to Jiostar India Pvt. Ltd.'s petition seeking restraint on third-party rights in the tournament's media and commercial rights, the bench of Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar held that: “In view of the fact that the transfer of the rights as set out in prayer clause (c) would effectively result in a complete erosion of the subject matter of the dispute, this Court is of the prima facie view that it is necessary that the proposed transfer of the same by Respondent No. 1 to Respondent No. 2 be interdicted”. The court further directed that “the Respondent No. 1 is therefore interdicted from, in any manner, creating any third-party rights, or transferring, assigning, or otherwise dealing with the media and commercial rights relating to the Legends League Cricket Master T20 tournament”.
Case Title : Kalanithi Maran vs SpiceJet Ltd
Case Number : OMP (COMM) 42 OF 2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 292
The Delhi High Court has rejected a plea by SpiceJet Ltd. seeking to substitute the court-directed cash deposit of Rs. 144.51 crore with security in the form of a Gurugram property owned by the airline, holding that the request was an abuse of process as similar grounds had already been raised before the Supreme Court and rejected. Justice Subramonium Prasad passed the order while dealing with applications seeking modification of directions issued on January 19, 2026, by which the Court had directed SpiceJet to deposit the balance decretal amount arising from an arbitral award in favour of Kalanithi Maran and Kal Airways Pvt. Ltd. The court noted that SpiceJet had earlier challenged the January 19, 2026, order before the Supreme Court on similar grounds, including financial difficulty, but the special leave petition was dismissed with costs after being termed an abuse of process. In these circumstances, the High Court held that the same arguments could not be repeated in the modification applications.
Delhi High Court Upholds ₹1.93 Crore Arbitral Award In Favour Of BEL-ACC In Dispute With NHAI
Case Title : M/s National Highways Authority of India v. M/s BEL-ACC (JV)
Case Number : O.M.P. (COMM) 341/2020
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 300
On 24 March, the Delhi High Court upheld an arbitral award in favour of BEL-ACC (JV) granting Rs. 1.93 crore towards revised rates, overhead losses, and additional resource deployment. Justice Subramonium Prasad dismissed a petition filed by National Highways Authority of India (NHAI), holding that it does not warrant interference under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Court held: “...the findings of the learned Arbitral Tribunal demonstrate that a careful balance between the contractual provisions, the conduct of the parties, and the principles of fairness were maintained.”
Delhi High Court Appoints Arbitrator Though Arbitration Clause in Offers Not Repeated in Work Orders
Case Title : Moonwalk Infra Projects Private Limited v. Onstruq Interlayer Private Limited
Case Number : ARB. P. 1139/2025 & ARB. P. 1335/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 275
The Delhi High Court has held that the arbitration clause contained in techno-commercial offers formed part of the contract between Moonwalk Infra Projects Private Limited and Onstruq Interlayer Private Limited, even though the subsequent work orders did not repeat the clause, since the work orders were issued with reference to and on the basis of those offers. A Single Bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh observed that “the Work Orders do not stand in isolation but are intrinsically linked to and founded upon the petitioner's TCOs. The reference to the quotation is neither incidental nor merely descriptive; rather, it forms the very foundation upon which the Work Orders have been issued. In such circumstances, the technical specifications contained in the TCOs, including the arbitration clause, prima facie stand incorporated into the Work Orders through reference.”
Case Title : Air India Limited v. All India Aircraft Engineers Association & Anr.; National Aviation Company of India Limited v. Indian Aircraft Technicians Association & Anr
Case Number : FAO(OS) 125/2023 & FAO(OS) 126/2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 289
The Delhi High Court dismissed Air India Limited's appeals and upheld arbitral awards directing the airline and its predecessor entities to pay wage arrears of Rs. 57.92 crore to the All India Aircraft Engineers Association (AIAEA) and Rs. 7.81 lakh to the Indian Aircraft Technicians Association (IATA). A Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetrapal and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar held that Presidential Directives (PDs) issued on wage revision and arrears for engineers and technicians, are binding administrative instructions but do not have the character of statutory law, and that an arbitral tribunal does not exceed its mandate by examining such directives when quantifying admitted dues. “This Court is of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge has rightly observed that while PDs are binding administrative instructions, they do not partake the character of statutory law", it held.
Case Title : Proto Developers and Technologies Ltd v. Antriksh Realtech Pvt. Ltd & Anr.
Case Number : FAO(OS) (COMM) 189/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 277
The Delhi High Court has upheld an arbitral award directing Proto Developers and Technologies Ltd. to pay over Rs 12 crore to Antriksh Realtech Pvt. Ltd., holding that where a party fails to specifically deny a claim and does not cross-examine the opposing witness on a crucial issue, the arbitral tribunal is entitled to treat the evidence as unrebutted and the claim as established. A Division Bench comprising Justices Anil Kshetrapal and Amit Mahajan observed, “A party that declines to cross-examine a witness on a crucial aspect cannot subsequently contend that the said statement of the witness ought not to be relied upon. In the present case, the absence of a specific denial in the pleadings to the counterclaim and the failure to cross-examine the witness of the Respondent No.1, RW-2, on the issue of financial assistance of Rs. 9 crores entitled the Tribunal to treat that part of the evidence as unrebutted and to draw the corresponding evidentiary inference.".
Case Title : ERA Infra Engineering Limited v. National Highways Authority of India & Anr.
Case Number : ARB. A. (COMM.) 47/2025 & I.A. 22290/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 296
The Delhi High Court has held that rejection of an impleadment application by an arbitral tribunal amounts to a jurisdictional determination under Sections 16(2) and 16(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and is therefore appealable under Section 37 of the Act. Justice Avneesh Jhingan observed that while deciding whether a non-signatory can be added to arbitration proceedings, the tribunal necessarily rules on its own jurisdiction. Justice Avneesh Jhingan observed that while deciding whether a non-signatory can be added to arbitration proceedings, the tribunal necessarily rules on its own jurisdiction. “The court on an application for impleadment passes a procedural order but the tribunal in arbitration determines whether it has jurisdiction vis-a-vis the rights and liabilities of a non-signatory to the agreement. While deciding the impleadment of a non-signatory the tribunal deals with the issue of jurisdiction and this falls within the ambit of Section 16(2) and 16(3) of the Act.”
Dues Cannot Be Withheld Till Eternity: Delhi High Court Upholds Award Against MMTC
Case Title : MMTC Limited v. M/s Knowledge Infrastructure & Anr.
Case Number : O.M.P. (COMM) 404/2020
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 298
The Delhi High Court upheld an arbitral award directing MMTC Limited to release withheld amounts of Rs 1.64 crore towards railway surcharge and Rs 56.93 lakh towards detention charges to Knowledge Infrastructure and another party, holding that the amounts could not be retained indefinitely when the alleged liability had not crystallised and the Railways had not processed the claims for years. “Five years have passed since the demands were raised and yet, the Railways had not processed the claims raised by the Respondents, particularly Claim No. 3 and 4, thereby withholding the same. The view taken by the learned Arbitrator that the claims cannot be withheld till eternity, cannot come within the four corners of the expression 'in contravention with the fundamental policy of India law‟ or 'in conflict with the most basic notions of morality and justice”, the Court observed.
Delhi High Court Restores Arbitral Award In Warehouse Fire Case Involving CWC–Indo Arya Logistics
Case Title : Central Warehousing Corporation v. Indo Arya Logistics (A Unit of Indo Arya Central Transport Ltd.)
Case Number : FAO (COMM) 75/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 252
The Delhi High Court on 10 March restored an arbitral award of Rs. 91,62,992 in a warehouse fire dispute between Central Warehousing Corporation and Indo Arya Logistics, holding that the Commercial Court had exceeded its limited powers by substituting its own view on negligence.
A Division Bench of Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora observed that the arbitrator's inference (that Indo Arya Logistics was negligent) was a plausible view arising from the circumstances of the fire.
The Court held that under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the District Court could not interfere with an award unless the arbitrator's conclusion was contrary to public policy or patently illegal. It also reiterated:
“The mere fact that the cause of the accident is unknown does not prevent the plaintiff from recovering the damages… sometimes the fact that the accident occurred may itself constitute evidence of negligence."
Case Title : Synergy Consultants v. M/s T.D. Williamson India Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : FAO(OS)(COMM) 153/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 244
The Delhi High Court on Tuesday upheld an arbitral award in a commission dispute between a consultancy firm and an oil and gas pipeline services company. The court affirmed the arbitrator's view that a representative appointed under a commercial agreement does not automatically become entitled to commission every time the company secures a project from the same customer.
A Division Bench of Justice Anil Kshetrapal and Justice Amit Mahajan dismissed an appeal and affirmed an earlier decision refusing to set aside the award.
"A commercial arrangement of this nature, whereby a representative is appointed to promote products and assist in securing projects, reasonably admits of an interpretation that commission is linked to the services rendered and the extent of participation in the concerned transaction. The view adopted by the Arbitrator, that the representative would be entitled to commission commensurate with the work performed or assistance actually rendered, is a possible and commercially sensible interpretation of the agreement", it held.
Case Title : Man Industries (India) Limited Versus Gail (India) Limited
Case Number : O.M.P. (COMM) 191/2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 258
The Delhi High Court has recently dismissed a petition challenging an arbitral award passed in favour of GAIL (India) Limited, reiterating that the scope of interference under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is limited. The court said it cannot re-appreciate evidence or disturb an award merely because another interpretation of the contract is possible, so long as the arbitrator's view is a plausible one.
Justice Amit Bansal observed that the arbitral tribunal had interpreted the contract to mean that the price reduction schedule would apply if the supplier failed to adhere to the agreed monthly delivery schedule of pipes.
Case Title : Ramsethu Infrastructure v. Indian Railway Welfare Organisation
Case Number : O.M.P. (COMM) 348/2020
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 299
The Delhi High Court upheld an arbitral award in favour of the Indian Railway Welfare Organisation (IRWO), affirming the termination of a housing construction contract and forfeiture of the contractor's bank guarantee and security deposit. The Court held that obstruction by local residents and apprehension of hostility at the site did not fall within the force majeure clause and that the contractor's refusal to resume work amounted to abandonment of the project. The Bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad observed that, "The learned Arbitrator has interpreted the force majeure clause and has come to the conclusion that the present event on which reliance is placed by the Petitioner will not fall within the four corners of force majeure clause. This Court is in agreement with the view taken by the learned Arbitrator. Even otherwise, as repeatedly held by the Apex Court, the interpretation of a contract, predominantly, is in the domain of the Arbitrator. An award cannot be set aside just because another view is possible or sometimes is even more preferable."
Case Title : Wadia Techno Engineering Services Limited v. Director General of Married Accommodation Project & Anr.
Case Number : FAO(OS) (COMM) 195/2024 & connected matters
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 297
The Delhi High Court dismissed appeals filed by Wadia Techno Engineering Services Limited challenging arbitral awards in disputes arising from consultancy agreements for defence housing projects, holding that the consultant was not entitled to higher fees or compensation for delays. A Division Bench of Justice Anil Kshetrapal and Justice Amit Mahajan observed, “In the present case, the Tribunal has examined the contractual definition of “Project Cost” (Article 1.9), the structure of consultancy fees (Article 1.10), and the absence of any clause providing for escalation of consultancy fees. The conclusion reached by the Tribunal that the consultancy fee was not subject to revision merely because the cost of the project increased during execution cannot be said to be an interpretation that is implausible or contrary to the contract.
Case Title : SARR Freights Corporation & Anr. v. Argo Coral Maritime Ltd.
Case Number : CS(OS) 868/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 259
The Delhi High Court recently reiterated that the jurisdiction of civil courts is not barred merely because arbitration is seated outside India but said that the power to restrain such proceedings must be exercised only in exceptional circumstances, refusing to stop arbitration initiated in London by Argo Coral Maritime Ltd. against SARR Freights Corporation and SARR Freights Limited.
Relying on the top court's ruling in Engineering Projects (India) Limited Versus MSA Global LLC (Oman), Justice Mini Pushkarna observed, “The jurisdiction of Indian Civil Courts is not excluded merely because arbitration is seated abroad, and Courts retain residual equitable powers to prevent abuse of arbitral process.”
Case Title : Cosco Blossoms Pvt Ltd Versus Oriental Insurance Company Ltd
Case Number : O.M.P. (COMM) 568/2016
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 255
The Delhi High Court has set aside an arbitral award, holding that an arbitral tribunal cannot rely solely on a defective surveyor's report while ignoring material evidence placed on record. The court observed that although a surveyor's report is an important piece of evidence in insurance disputes, it is not sacrosanct and cannot be treated as conclusive when it suffers from serious infirmities.
Justice Jasmeet Singh observed,
“The Award is squarely based on a survey report which, though an important piece of evidence, is not a sacrosanct document and cannot be accepted at face value when it is clearly defective. The Arbitrator could not have relied solely on the survey report to deliver its findings while disregarding other vital evidence placed on record.”
Karnataka High Court
Case Title : Raghavendra & Anr. v. Vijaykumar
Case Number : Civil Misc. Petition No. 100019 of 2024
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 9
The Karnataka High Court has held that an arbitration clause contained in a partnership reconstitution deed cannot be enforced b a person who has not signed the deed, and that in such circumstances, the court cannot appoint an arbitrator under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Justice Lalitha Kanneganti made the observation in an order dated January 7 while hearing a petition filed by two outgoing partners of Shree Raghavendra Industries, seeking appointment of an arbitrator under an arbitration clause contained in a reconstitution deed dated March 18, 2023.
The Court held that a reconstitution deed cannot bind a party who has not signed it. As there was no valid arbitration agreement, the Court declined to appoint an arbitrator under Section 11 of the Act and dismissed the petition.
Case Title: Qatar Holding LLC v. Byju Raveendran
Case Number: AP.EFA No.1 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 7
The Karnataka High Court passed an ad-interim order attaching 17,891,289 equity shares held by Beeaar Investco Pte. Ltd. and beneficially owned by Byju Raveendran in Aakash Educational Services Ltd. The Single Bench of Justice Sunil Dutt Yadav said the direction was necessary to prevent the interim injunction granted on September 1, 2025, from being rendered ineffective due to subsequent developments and to safeguard the beneficial interest linked to the award debtor. Taking note of the submissions and the earlier restraint order, Justice Yadav held that an ad-interim arrangement was warranted at this stage.
Affirming the earlier restraint, the court directed that alienation of 17,891,289 shares held by Beeaar Investco Pte. Ltd., insofar as the beneficial interest of the award debtor in Aakash Educational Services Ltd. is concerned, would stand protected by an order of attachment. The court clarified that the attachment is a provisional arrangement, subject to final orders to be passed on the interlocutory application. Notices were directed to be issued to Beeaar Investco Pte. Ltd. and Aakash Educational Services Ltd., and the matter has been listed for further hearing after two weeks.
Case Title : M/s Bhagyalakshmi Homes LLP v. Sulekha Verma and Ors
Case Number : Commercial Appeal No.618 of 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 21
The Karnataka High Court has reiterated that a defendant cannot seek reference to arbitration under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 after its right to file a written statement in a commercial suit has been closed, dismissing an appeal filed by real estate developer Bhagyalakshmi Homes LLP.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C.M. Poonacha upheld the Commercial Court's order rejecting the developer's plea to refer the dispute to arbitration.
“It is clear from the plain language of Sub-section (1) of Section 8 of the A&C Act that an application under Section 8 can be made not later than the date of submitting his first statement on the substance of the dispute,” the Bench observed.
Referring to its earlier decision in SPML Infra Ltd. v. Trisquare Switchgears (P) Ltd. and the Supreme Court's ruling in SSCG Contracts (India) (P) Ltd. v. K.S. Chamankar Infrastructure (P) Ltd., the Bench reiterated that in commercial suits a written statement must be filed within 30 days of service of summons, extendable up to 120 days, beyond which the right stands forfeited.
Case Title : Mobisy Technologies Pvt Ltd v. M/s J G Hosiery Pvt Ltd
Case Number : CMP No. 311 of 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 20
The Karnataka High Court held that enterprises are not required in every case to move the Facilitation Council under Chapter V of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006, which provides a mechanism for referring delayed payment disputes to the Council.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj clarified that a contractual arbitration clause remains enforceable unless the statutory process under Section 18 is actually invoked.
“It cannot be said, as an absolute proposition, that micro, small or medium enterprises are required in every case to proceed only under Chapter V of the MSMED Act and to refer all disputes to the Facilitation Council under Section 18. The requirement arises only upon invocation of the statutory mechanism in the case of micro and small enterprises, and does not arise at all in the case of medium enterprises,” the Court observed.
The Court further held that Chapter V, titled “Delayed payments to micro and small enterprises,” applies only to micro and small enterprises. Referring to Section 2(n), which defines “supplier” as a micro or small enterprise, it held that the definition cannot be stretched to include medium enterprises. Medium enterprises are therefore outside the scope of Section 18.
Arbitration Can Resume Without Fresh Notice After Award Is Set Aside: Karnataka High Court
Case Title : M/s Re Sustainability Healthcare Solutions Limited v. Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike and Anr
Case Number : Civil Misc. Petition No. 12 of 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 14
The Karnataka High Court has held that once an arbitral award is set aside, the disputes stand revived and can be referred back to arbitration without requiring the parties to issue a fresh notice under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Section 21 deals with the commencement of arbitral proceedings through notice to the opposing party. Justice Suraj Govindaraj held that this requirement is procedural and not jurisdictional and cannot be invoked to block arbitration after an award has been annulled. "The legal consequence of such an order is that the award is obliterated and ceases to exist in the eye of law,” the court held, clarifying that annulment of an award returns the parties to arbitration to resolve the same disputes. “The requirement of a fresh notice under Section 21 is procedural and cannot be elevated to a jurisdictional bar so as to defeat the substantive right of a party to seek arbitration,” the court added, noting that the opposing party was already aware of the disputes and had participated in earlier arbitral proceedings.
Case Title : Ssv Developers And Ors. Versus Sunder S/O. Premraj Jotwani And Ors.
Case Number : Civil Misc Petition No.100026 Of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 23
The Karnataka High Court has recently refused to appoint a substitute arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act after an award had already been passed and the matter was remanded only for a limited purpose, holding that such reconstitution would effectively reopen concluded arbitral proceedings.
Dismissing a plea filed by SSV Developers and its Managing Partner Vijaykumar Krishnasa Kabadi, Justice Lalitha Kanneganti held that once an award is passed and the case is remanded only for limited cross-examination and defence evidence, a fresh arbitrator cannot be appointed, particularly when the petitioners failed to comply with the District Court's direction to pay arbitral costs.
“The power to appoint another Arbitrator ordinarily arises when the mandate of the existing Arbitrator terminates during the course of arbitral proceedings. However, the present case stands on a different footing,” the court observed.
Case Title : R.K. Infra and Engineering (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s The Sandur Manganese and Iron Ore Ltd.
Case Number : Commercial Appeal No. 63 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 32
The Karnataka High Court has recently observed that the commencement of arbitral proceedings will be governed by agreed institutional rules and not necessarily by Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, since the provision applies only “unless otherwise agreed by the parties."
Dismissing a contractor's appeal against a Rs 7.99-crore arbitral award, the court observed that “It is apparent from the plain language of Section 21 of the A&C Act that the arbitral proceedings are deemed to commence on the date when a request that the disputes be referred to arbitration is received by the non-claimant. However, the opening words of Section 21 make it clear that this is subject to the parties agreeing otherwise.”
Case Title : Coorg Cineplex & Ors v. K.J. Nagendra Gupta & Anr.
Case Number : Commercial Appeal No. 34 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 34
The Karnataka High Court has recently upheld a Commercial Court order rejecting a plea for interim measures filed by Coorg Cineplex and its partners, holding that after the expiry of the lease, the landlord cannot be restrained from raising objections before the licensing authority regarding the renewal of a theatre licence.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C.M. Poonacha dismissed the appeal filed by the Cineplex, which had sought directions to the licensing authority to consider renewal of the theatre licence without insisting on the landlord's no-objection certificate.
The court noted that the licensing authority was not a party to the arbitration proceedings and is required to act in accordance with law.
It observed, “Clearly, the respondents are entitled to raise their objections before the licensing authority. We find no reason that would compel the respondents to refrain from raising objections. Conversely, we do not accept that the appellants have any right to insist that the respondents desist from raising their objections.”
Calcutta High Court
Court Can Extend Arbitrator's Mandate Even After Its Expiry: Calcutta High Court
Case Title : Andaman and Nicobar Islands Integrated Corporation Ltd. v. M/s Heaven on Ocean Tourism Pvt. Ltd
Case Number : AP/2/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 18
The Calcutta High Court has reiterated that an arbitrator's authority does not end automatically on expiry of the time limit prescribed under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The court said that it retains the power to extend an arbitrator's mandate even after expiry of the time fixed and that in this case the parties had consented by their conduct. Applying this settled position, the court extended the mandate of the arbitrator in the case before it and refused to terminate the proceedings at an advanced stage.
Justice Arindam Mukherjee, sitting at the Circuit Bench in Port Blair, noted that the order appointing the arbitrator had fixed an 18-month period but did not state that this timeline was final or incapable of extension. “An order should not be read as status,” the court observed, adding that “in absence of any specific stipulation that the time cannot be extended it has to be construed that time can be extended.”
Case Title: Zillion Infraprojects Private Limited v. Bridge And Roof Company India Limited
Case Number: AP-COM 913 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 15
The Calcutta High Court has reiterated that where an arbitral tribunal conclusively rejects claims as barred by limitation, such a determination amounts to an interim award and is amenable to challenge under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and not under Section 37. While Section 34 provides the remedy for challenging arbitral awards, Section 37 is confined to appeals against limited procedural or jurisdictional orders passed during the arbitral process.
Explaining the law, the court observed, “The nomenclature assigned to an order by the arbitral tribunal is not determinative; rather, it is the substance and effect of the order that governs the issue of maintainability. The Court must therefore ascertain whether the impugned determination is in the nature of a jurisdictional ruling under Section 16 of the Act, amenable to an appeal under Section 37(2), or whether it constitutes an interim award finally deciding certain claims, thereby attracting a challenge under Section 34.”
Case Title : C & E Limited and Others Vs. Gopal Das Bagri and Others
Case Number : A.P.O. No. 184 of 2023 In AP No. 402 of 2020, IA No: GA 2 of 2023
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 27
The Calcutta High Court has held that parties to an arbitration cannot introduce completely new material for the first time at the appellate stage (Section 37) of arbitration proceedings if such material could have been produced earlier but was not placed before the court when the arbitral award was initially challenged (Section 34). The court emphasised that an appeal at this stage is not an opportunity to cure evidentiary lapses or supplement the record belatedly.
A division bench of Justices Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Supratim Bhattacharya made the observation while deciding cross-appeals arising from an arbitral award dated February 29, 2020. The award had been set aside by a single judge of the High Court on July 27, 2023.
Case Title : Smt. Jaya Kar v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : IA No. GA 2 OF 2021 AP-550 OF 2017
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 21
The Calcutta High Court has dismissed an application seeking to challenge an arbitral award after finding that it was filed in the wrong proceeding. The Court held that once it appoints an arbitrator, it cannot entertain further applications in that case and that any challenge to an award must be filed separately under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
Justice Gaurang Kanth said, “the present application came to be filed in the disposed of Section 11 proceedings owing to an inadvertent and bona fide mistake on the part of the learned Counsel, such an error cannot confer jurisdiction upon this Court where none exists. Procedural latitude, howsoever liberal, cannot be extended so as to defeat the statutory scheme of the Act, particularly when the remedy and forum for assailing an arbitral award are specifically delineated.” “Unlike in Swadha Builders, the proceedings under Section 11 herein had attained finality upon appointment of the Arbitrator, and this Court had not retained seisin over the matter nor granted any leave to file subsequent applications,” the court observed.
Council Members Changed Between Hearing and Award: Calcutta High Court Sets Aside MSME Award
Case Title : The Board Of Major Port Authority For The Syama Prasad Mookerjee Port, Kolkata v. Marinecraft Engineers Private Limited
Case Number : A.P.O.T No. 195 of 2025; AP-COM 296 of 2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 25
The Calcutta High Court has set aside an arbitral award passed by the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Facilitation Council.It held that the award in this case could not stand because it was delivered by a differently constituted tribunal than the one that heard the parties A division bench of Justice Debangsu Basak and Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi found that the dispute was heard over several years but the Council's composition kept changing. The members who finally delivered and signed the award were not the same in material part as those who had heard the matter on merits.
The court noted, “there is a change in the position of the Arbitral Tribunal between the last date of its meeting on May 12, 2021 and the date when the award was passed on April 28, 2022. At least two of the members of the Council stood changed in between the last two dates.” Allowing the appeal, the High Court stressed that arbitral proceedings must comply with natural justice. The bench said, “. That arbitral decisions must adhere to principles of natural justice is the public policy of India, is trite law. Any breach of the principles of natural justice or the award being contrary to the fundamental policy of Indian laws allows re-appreciation of the award under Section 34 of the Act of 1996”
Arbitration | Mechanical Reliance On No Claim Certificate Is Non-Adjudication: Calcutta High Court
Case Title: Chaitanya Kumar Dey v. Union of India
Case Number: AP-777 of 2016
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 7
The Calcutta High Court held that mechanical reliance on a 'No Claim Certificate,' without examining whether the claims raised were covered by such document, amounts to non-adjudication. A Single Bench of Justice Gaurang Kanth in an order dated January 9 explained that the mechanical reliance on such certificates, without examining the surrounding facts and evidence, amounts to non-adjudication and renders the award vulnerable to challenge.
The Court observed: “Even execution of a full and final discharge voucher does not bar a contractor from claiming further amounts, provided entitlement is established on the basis of adequate material. Mechanical reliance on a No Claim Certificate, without such examination, amounts to non-adjudication.” The court reiterated that arbitrators are duty-bound to examine the circumstances surrounding execution of discharge vouchers and cannot treat them as an absolute bar to genuine claims.
Case Title: Siddharta Chandra v. SK. Abdul Kasem & Ors
Case Number: FMA 1738 of 2025 with CAN 1 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 12
The Calcutta High Court held that the statutory bar in the Commercial Courts Act operates as an inherent subject-matter bar in arbitration related proceedings and cannot be waived by consent or conduct of the parties, even if no objection is raised before the court of first instance. Justices Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Supratim Bhattacharya made the observation on January 13, while deciding an appeal filed by Siddharta Chandra challenging an order passed by the District Judge, Hooghly, under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
The respondent party argued that since no objection regarding maintainability or jurisdiction was raised before the Section 9 court, the appellant was precluded from raising it at the appellate stage. Rejecting this contention, the high court held that a statutory jurisdictional bar cannot be cured by silence, waiver, or acquiescence and non-argument before the designated court was entirely irrelevant.
Case Title: Jagannath Heights Pvt Ltd v. M/S Sammaan Capital Limited
Case No: IA NO. GA-COM/2/2025 In CS-COM/801/2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 13
The Calcutta High Court rejected a Master's summons application filed by M/s Samman Capital Limited, that sought stay of a commercial suit on the grounds of an existing arbitration clause. Emphasizing the need for a specific prayer, the Court held that "the age old settled legal principle is that when a statute prescribes to do certain thing in a certain manner, the thing has to be done in the same manner or not at all. All other modes are expressly forbidden." It held that as none of the prayers in the Master's Summons sought reference to arbitration under Section 8, it deemed the application untenable.
The Judge additionally stressed that liberal construction is not permitted in this context, as it would "defeat the legislative intent" behind the enactment. The Bench clarified that the “provision under Section 8 being a specific statutory provision has to be applied strictly by way of a separate application with specific prayer and it would be of no relevance whether in the written statement, the defendant has raised the issue or not”.
Case Title : Alok Saraf & Ors. vs Shyam Sundar Nangalia & Ors.
Case Number : APOT No.269 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 54
The Calcutta High Court on 18 February, held that an arbitral award holder is not left remediless after initiating enforcement proceedings and may seek interim protection under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act until the award is fully satisfied.
A Division Bench of Justices Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Supratim Bhattacharya was hearing an appeal filed by Alok Saraf and others against the EPI Group, challenging a single judge's order dated 10 September 2025, which had refused ad interim relief in their Section 9 application.
The Court observed: “Although Section 36 (2) of the 1996 Act itself contemplates stay of the award, the same operates only to the benefit of the award debtor, and is restricted to a stay of the award. However, neither Section 36 nor Section 34 of the 1996 Act provides any remedy similar to Section 9 to the award holder, in aid of and in order to facilitate the fruition of the award.”
Case Title : India Media Services Private Limited v. SBPL Infrastructure Limited
Case Number : APOT No. 1 of 2026 with IA No. GA 1 of 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 53
An executing court does not become functus officio merely because it “allows” an execution petition, the Calcutta High Court has held, clarifying that jurisdiction continues until the arbitral award is fully implemented and satisfied.
Dismissing an appeal filed by India Media Services Pvt Ltd, a Division Bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Justice Supratim Bhattacharya said that allowing the execution case was “merely nominal, contemplating further steps to be taken” and that “it cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that the executing court became functus officio.”
The Division Bench held that an award for specific performance remains executory until the deed is finalised, executed, and registered. “Unless an award is satisfied, it cannot be said that the execution is complete,” the Court observed.
Copy Of Arbitration Agreement Sufficient Where Original Not Available: Calcutta High Court
Case Title : Akankha Nirman Private Limited & Anr. v. M/s. Supreme Construction & Ors.
Case Number : CO 2628 of 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 51
The Calcutta High Court held that an application seeking reference to arbitration cannot be rejected merely because the original arbitration agreement or a certified copy is not produced, if the statutory requirements under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act are otherwise satisfied. A Single Bench of Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya set aside the orders of the trial court and the first appellate court, which had refused to refer the parties to arbitration.
The court observed that the courts below had adopted a “hyper-technical” approach and conducted a “mini trial” at the referral stage by holding that the dispute over the return of documents fell outside the scope of the arbitration clause. “This Court accordingly holds that when the original arbitration agreement or a duly certified copy thereof is not available with the party applying for reference to arbitration under Sub-section 1 of Section 8 of A & C Act, such application can be entertained if it is accompanied by a copy of arbitration agreement,” the bench observed.
No Appeal Lies Against Conditional Stay Of Arbitral Award: Calcutta High Court
Case Title : National Insurance Company Limited v. Tirupati Food Products
Case Number : APOT 320 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 45
The Calcutta High Court has held that an appeal does not lie against an order granting conditional stay of an arbitral award, observing that such orders fall outside the narrow appellate framework prescribed under arbitration Act. Section 36(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, allows a party that has challenged an arbitral award in court to seek a stay on the enforcement of that award.
A Division Bench of Justice Debangsu Basak and Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi dismissed an appeal filed by National Insurance Company Limited against an order of a Single Judge disposing of a Section 36(2) petition by granting conditional stay of an arbitral award.
Rejecting the appeal as not maintainable, the Division Bench held: “The right of appeal, so far as the parties before us are concerned, being circumscribed by Section 37 of the Act of 1996, and Section 37 of the Act of 1996 not providing any right of appeal against an order disposing of a petition under Section 36 (2) of the Act of 1996, the instant appeal is held to be not maintainable.”
Case Title : Prime Projects v. Prajnanananda Jana Seva Sangha & Anr.
Case Number: AP-COM 821 OF 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 47
The Calcutta High Court has observed that a real estate development agreement can qualify as a commercial dispute even if the project is residential in nature and even if both parties are not engaged in the business.
Justice Shampa Sarkar said the agreement, when read as a whole, showed that the property was meant to be commercially exploited.
"Whether the agreement is a nullity, and non est in the eye of law, will have to be decided by the learned arbitrator. The purpose of enquiry by the referral court is limited to the, prima facie, satisfaction as to the existence of the arbitration agreement", the court further observed.
Appointing a sole arbitrator, the court named Senior Advocate Sabyasachi Chowdhury to adjudicate the disputes between the parties. The appointment was made subject to disclosure requirements under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, and the arbitrator was given liberty to fix his remuneration in accordance with the statutory schedule.
Case Title : Indrani Sarangi v. Reliance Projects And Property Management Service Limited & Anr.
Case Number : AP (COM) No. 262 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 46
The Calcutta High Court has referred a telecom tower lease dispute to arbitration. It declined to decide, at the referral stage, whether non-signatory Reliance group entities were bound by the arbitration clause or whether past dues stood extinguished under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC).
Justice Shampa Sarkar held that such objections raise triable jurisdictional issues. These must be decided by the arbitral tribunal. The court reiterated that its role under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, is limited to a prima facie examination of the existence of an arbitration agreement.
“The scope of the referral court is limited to the, prima facie, satisfaction as to the existence of an arbitration agreement or an arbitration clause. No deeper probe or mini trial is permissible at this stage,” the court said.
Case Title : Turner Morrison Limited v. Berger Paints India Limited
Case Number : AP-COM/990/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 36
The Calcutta High Court has appointed Justice T.S. Sivagnanam, former Chief Justice of the Court, as the sole arbitrator to decide a tax liability holdback dispute between Turner Morrison Limited and Berger Paints India Limited. A Single Bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar held that objections based on limitation and contractual interpretation cannot be decided at the stage of appointing an arbitrator. The Court said such issues must be left to the arbitral tribunal, which is the “master of facts”. The court reiterated that its role at the referral stage is limited to examining the existence of an arbitration clause. A deeper inquiry into disputed facts or contractual meanings would defeat the purpose of arbitration as a speedy and time-bound remedy.
Calcutta High Court Sets Aside Arbitral Award Against Company Officials Without Impleading Companies
Case Title : Managing Director Bihar State Power Generation Company Ltd & Anr vs RS Construction & Anr
Case Number : APOT/332/2025, IA No.GA-COM/1/2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 43
The Calcutta High Court has set aside an arbitral award after finding that it was passed against two officials of state-owned power companies instead of the companies that were parties to the arbitration agreement. A Division Bench of Justices Debangsu Basak and Md. Shabbar Rashidi held that the award, which fastened liability on the managing director of Bihar State Power Generation Company Limited and the chairman of Bihar State Power Holding Company Limited, could not be sustained since the arbitration agreement admittedly existed only with the two companies. “In such circumstances, as the award passed are against two individuals, who are separate and distinct from the persons with whom the claimant in the arbitration proceedings entered into the arbitration agreement, the award cannot be sustained,” the court said.
Non-Signatory Successor Company May Invoke Arbitration Clause After Merger: Calcutta High Court
Case Title : Tata Capital Ltd vs Arvind Manjhi
Case Number : AP-COM/40/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 44
The Calcutta High Court has recently held that a company that becomes the successor of an original contracting party pursuant to an NCLT-approved merger can invoke an arbitration clause even if it is not a signatory to the original agreement. Justice Shampa Sarkar made the observation on February 3 while hearing an application filed by Tata Capital Limited seeking appointment of an arbitrator in a dispute arising out of a loan agreement with a borrower. “In my prima facie view, even if the petitioner is a non-signatory, in view of the merger, the petitioner can invoke arbitration as the successor of the erstwhile lender,” the court said. The court noted that the loan agreement defined the term “lender” to include its successors and assigns. It also recorded that the arbitration notice clearly disclosed the merger and explained how Tata Capital had stepped into the shoes of the original lender. The notice was received by the borrower, who raised no objection to Tata Capital's locus. Relying on the apex court's rulings on non-signatories in Chloro Controls India Pvt Ltd v Severn Trent Water Purification Inc and Cox and Kings Ltd v SAP India Pvt Ltd and the doctrine of competence-competence, the court observed that questions relating to arbitrability, limitation, and jurisdiction were matters to be decided by the arbitral tribunal.
Case Title : Aditya Almal & Anr. v. The First Land Acquisition Collector, Kolkata & Anr.
Case Number : WPO 1531 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 62
The Calcutta High Court has recently refused to appoint an Arbitrator to determine compensation for the period from April 1, 1992 to January 12, 2023, during which the Kolkata Municipal Corporation (KMC) continued to occupy a private property after expiry of requisition, holding that once the requisition ended, the statutory arbitration mechanism under the West Bengal Premises Requisition and Control (Temporary Provision) Act, 1947, could no longer be invoked. “The rent compensation for a premises cannot be fixed by the Arbitrator under Section 11(1)(b) of the 1947 Act during the period the property continues to remain with the State without any authority of law,” the Court observed, concluding that “no direction can be passed upon the State Government to appoint an Arbitrator under Section 11(1)(b) of the 1947 Act for determination of compensation for the period from April 1, 1992 till January 12, 2023.”, it said.
Case Title : Mintech Global Pvt Ltd vs Ultratech Cement Pvt Ltd
Case Number : AO-COM/6/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 73
The Calcutta High Court on 16 March dismissed cross appeals filed by Mintech Global Pvt Ltd and UltraTech Cement Ltd, upholding a Single Judge's order that partly modified an arbitral award arising from a commercial contract related to cement manufacturing. A Division Bench of Justices Debangsu Basak and Md. Shabbar Rashidi held that the Single Judge's conclusions on the interest rate and the limited scope of jurisdiction under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, warranted no interference. The judges noted: “Learned Single Judge has therefore rightly held that the Arbitral Tribunal acted contrary to the contract in reducing the rate of interest. We have not found that the exercise of jurisdiction by the learned Single Judge under Section 34 of the Act of 1996, stands vitiated.”
Case Title : Srikanta Patra v. IndusInd Bank Ltd.
Case Number : CO 4388 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 76
The Calcutta High Court held in a dispute between a borrower and IndusInd Bank that even if an arbitration clause permits unilateral appointment of an arbitrator by one party, such a condition would invalidate only the appointment procedure and not the arbitration agreement itself. In a judgment dated March 23, 2026, Justice Om Narayan Rai upheld the referral of the dispute to arbitration while affirming an order of the City Civil Court, Calcutta, which had stayed a civil suit filed by borrower Srikanta Patra and referred the parties to arbitration under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. “The petitioner's contention that the arbitration clause is invalid since the same provides for unilateral appointment of arbitrator by the lender does not appeal. In the considered view of this Court, such a condition would render the unilateral process of appointment of arbitrator invalid but not the arbitration agreement itself", it held.
Case Title : Ugro Capital Ltd vs Vallabh Metal Industries Ltd And Anr.
Case Number : AP-COM 735 OF 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 67
The Calcutta High Court has held that while exercising jurisdiction to extend the mandate of an arbitral tribunal under Section 29A of the Arbitration Act, the court is concerned only with whether extension of time is warranted and cannot examine the merits of issues pending before the tribunal.
While deciding a petition filed by UGRO Capital Ltd seeking extension of the mandate of a sole arbitrator in a dispute with Vallabh Metal Industries, Justice Gaurang Kanth observed:
“In any event, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, this Court is concerned only with the question whether extension of the mandate is warranted and not with the merits of issues pending before the Tribunal.”
Case Title : TD-ITD CEM Joint Venture v. Kolkata Metro Rail Corporation Limited
Case Number : APOT No. 298 of 2025 with GA-COM/1/2025 and GA-COM/2/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 69
The Calcutta High Court recently dismissed an appeal filed by a contractor, affirming a single judge's decision that had set aside an arbitral award arising out of the 2019 Kolkata East-West Metro tunnel accident.
A Division Bench of Justice Debangsu Basak and Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi held that the arbitral tribunal committed patent illegality by discarding expert evidence on the basis of its own technical assumptions drawn from personal expertise rather than material on record.
The bench observed:
"We have noted that the arbitral tribunal, while deciding the issues, imputed its personal expertise in civil engineering and concluded that the report submitted by IIT, Madras may not be conclusive and it was dependent upon several other factors. However, such findings were not based on any concrete evidence rather, it was mere assumption based on the personal knowledge and experience of the tribunal and the same was used to discard positive evidence adduced by the respondent".
'Purported Award' Can Be Challenged Under Section 34 Of Arbitration Act: Calcutta High Court
Case Title : SREI Equipment Finance Limited v. Roadwings International Private Limited
Case Number : AP-COM 529 of 2022 (With Connected Matters)
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 70
The Calcutta High Court on Friday held that the scope of challenge under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 extends beyond existing awards to include a “purported award” where the very existence of the award is in dispute.
A Single Bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya held that “For the purpose of furtherance of the objective of the 1996 Act and to avoid rendering its provisions nugatory by relegating the parties to the rigmarole of a regular civil suit, the power to entertain a challenge even on the ground of non-existence of a purported award has to be read into the fabric of Section 34 itself. In order to achieve such objective, the expression “an arbitral award” in Section 34 has to be read up to include “or a purported award” as well. If so construed, a challenge to a so-called award on the ground of non-existence of such award will come under the umbrella of Section 34 itself, subject, of course, to the grounds stipulated in Section 34 being otherwise attracted.”
Kerala High Court
Case Title : Athira K.S. v. Kotak Mahindra Prime Ltd. & Anr.
Case Number : Arb.A No. 23 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (KER) 8
The Kerala High Court has held that its role is limited when hearing an appeal against an interim order passed under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. At this stage, the court cannot examine whether the arbitrator was properly appointed or has the authority to act. A Single Judge Bench of Justice S Manu said such objections must be raised before the arbitral tribunal itself.
“Competency of the Arbitral Tribunal is a matter to be raised before the Tribunal by the party having a contention that the Arbitrator is incompetent. Such a contention cannot be considered in this arbitration appeal,” the court said. “If there is serious dispute regarding the propriety of engagement of the arbitrator, the same shall also be raised before the arbitral tribunal,” the court said. The appeal was dismissed, with liberty to the appellant to seek appropriate relief from the arbitrator.
No Substantive Review Maintainable Against Orders Appointing Arbitrators: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Koshy Phillip v. Thomas P. Mathew & Ors.
Case Number: R.P. 1582 of 2025 in A.R. No. 179 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (KER) 6
The Kerala High Court ruled that only limited procedural correction and not a substantive review is permissible of orders appointing or refusing to appoint an arbitrator under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. A single-judge bench of Justice S Manu said the law on arbitration is a self-contained code and does not permit courts to reopen such orders on merits, as that would slow down arbitration instead of speeding it up.
The court cautioned that allowing substantive review of Section 11 orders would cut directly against this objective, observing that “being a self-contained and exhaustive code on arbitration law, the Act carries the imperative that what is permissible under the law ought to be performed only in the manner indicated, and not otherwise.”
The court clarified that only a narrow procedural review is possible to correct obvious or patent errors. Anything more would amount to reopening the merits, which the Act does not allow. The court warned that “entertaining petitions for substantive review against orders issued under Section 11 of the Act would defeat the purpose and object of arbitration law.”
Case Title : Jimmy Elias v. Elizabeth Jasmine and Ors
Case Number : Arb.A No.24 of 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (KER) 21
The Kerala High Court has recently set aside an arbitral award after holding that the arbitrator committed a jurisdictional error by treating findings from an earlier arbitral award, which had already been set aside, as 'alive and final.' A bench comprising Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V. M. observed the arbitrator was required to consider the dispute afresh but failed to do so. Instead, the arbitrator proceeded on the assumption that conclusions recorded in the earlier arbitration continued to hold the field. The bench also noted that the arbitrator had failed to decide the counterclaim in accordance with law, despite evidence being available on record. That failure, the court said, independently vitiated the award. It further held that the Commercial Court had not properly exercised its jurisdiction while dismissing the challenge. “There has been no independent assessment of the pleadings or re-appreciation of the evidence which, in the context of the present proceedings, the learned Arbitrator is expected and supposed to do before arriving at a finding,” the court said.
Foreign Arbitral Award Unenforceable In India Without Valid Arbitration Agreement: Kerala High Court
Case Title : M/s Concilium Marine Group AB & Anr. v. Sharath Thazhathe Veedu
Case Number : E.P. (ICA) No. 1 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (KER) 61
The Kerala High Court held that a foreign arbitral award, even if confined to costs, cannot be enforced in India under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, if it is rendered in the absence of a valid arbitration agreement, holding that such disputes are not capable of settlement by arbitration under Indian law.
Justice S. Manu dismissed an execution petition filed by Concilium Marine Group AB and Concejo AB, two Swedish entities, against an Indian resident, observing, “A valid arbitration agreement is a baseline for a lawful arbitral proceeding in India. Agreement-less arbitration is inconceivable in Indian law. S.48(2)(a) stipulates that enforcement of an arbitral award can be refused if the court finds that the subject matter of difference is not capable of settlement by arbitration under the law of India. As the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 does not envisage a lawful arbitration without an agreement as articulated under S.7, for want of a binding agreement, the differences between the petitioners and the respondent in this case were not capable of settlement by arbitration under the Indian law. Consequently, the award is hit by S.48(2)(a). For the same reason, in my view it attracts the disqualification under S.48(2)(b) too even though the expression 'public policy of India' is understood in a restricted sense.”
Case Title : Raghavan V.T. v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : WP(C) No. 32088 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (KER) 37
The Kerala High Court recently held that once an arbitral award is set aside under Section 34of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the matter cannot be treated as remanded to the arbitrator unless a party had sought recourse to Section 34(4) during the pendency of the challenge proceedings.
Justice C. Jayachandran, rejected the National Highways Authority of India's (NHAI) plea of “implicit remand” finding that no such request had ever been made and that the District Court had merely set aside the award, and granted it 45 days to seek review.
The Bench observed:
“In the instant case, recourse to Section 34(4) has not been made by any of the parties. This Court takes stock of the fact that the learned District Judge has merely set aside the Award, without mentioning or referring anything about the remand or remit, presumably for the reason that there exists no such power.”
Case Title : Manappuram Asset Finance Ltd. v. Abdul Saleem A.B. & Ors.
Case Number : AR Nos. 16, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (KER) 47
The Kerala High Court has recently held that when an arbitral award is declared unenforceable during execution proceedings, the legal effect is akin to the award being set aside, and fresh arbitral proceedings can be initiated only after issuing a fresh notice invoking arbitration under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
“Once the arbitral award is declared as unenforceable/nullity in the eye of law by a competent court, even during execution proceedings, the impact of such a finding is akin to that of setting aside an award. The outcome remains the same. The award loses its legal sanctity, becomes inoperative and loses all its force. Under such circumstances, also, declaration of law in M/s.Agro Indus Credits Limited would squarely apply. Therefore, if the execution court finds that an arbitral award is unenforceable and invalid for any reason, in order to initiate fresh arbitral proceedings, it is essential to make a fresh request/issue fresh notice as contemplated under Section 21 of the Act, 1996,” the Court observed.
Case Title : Project Director v. MT Ahammed Ali and Anr
Case Number : Arb.A No. 31 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (KER) 55
The Kerala High Court dismissed an appeal challenging an arbitral award granting compensation for an entire residential building affected by land acquisition for National Highway-66 development in Kasaragod, Kerala. A division bench of Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. dismissed the appeal filed by the Project Director, National Highways Authority of India, reiterating the limited scope of interference under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. “The appellate power exercised by the Court under Section 37 of the Act, 1996 is not that of an Appellate Authority and much importance has to be attached to the Award which, in the instant case, was passed by an authority who is conversant with the nature of the dispute required to be adjudicated under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956.” the Bench observed.
Case Title : God's Own Country Health Resorts v Marriot Hotels India Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : OP(C) NO. 2962 OF 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (KER) 49
The Kerala High Court on 23 February, observed that interim relief granted under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the Act) does not automatically get vitiated merely because arbitral proceedings were not commenced within 90 days as required under Section 9(2) of the Act.
Justice T.R. Ravi clarified that proceedings to enforce the interim relief would also constitute proceedings under Section 9, and therefore the 90-day calculation is not limited to the original interim relief order.
The Bench held:
“Going by the judgment in Amazon.com(supra), even orders for enforcement of a protection order given under Section 9(1) would continue to be an order under Section 9(1). The statutory provision does not say that arbitral proceedings should be started within 90 days of the first order issued under Section 9(1).”
Case Title : Anoop Nambiar v. Union of India and Ors
Case Number : AR 47 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (KER) 54
The Kerala High Court on Friday held that the High Court cannot invoke its powers under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, in disputes governed by the Special Economic Zones Act, 2005, where the statute vests the power to appoint an arbitrator with the Central Government and the requirements for the exercise of Section 11 jurisdiction are not satisfied.
A coram of Justice S Manu rejected an arbitration request seeking the appointment of an arbitrator to resolve disputes with a company operating in the Infopark Special Economic Zone. The court observed that the SEZ Act provides for designated courts to adjudicate civil disputes arising in Special Economic Zones, and in their absence, such disputes must be referred to arbitration, with the arbitrator to be appointed by the Central Government.
Case Title : ED&F Man Liquid Products Italia Srl and Ors v. Emil Traders Private Limited
Case Number : Appeal (ICA) No. 1 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (KER) 53
The Kerala High Court recently held that courts possess wide powers under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act to grant interim measures, even after the arbitral award is passed but before its enforcement.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. held that “the expressions “securing the amount in dispute” and “such other interim measure of protection as may appear to the Court to be just and convenient” are important features of the said section, which confer wide and sweeping powers on the Court to pass interim measures even after an award is passed but before its enforcement.” it observed
Bombay High Court
Bombay High Court Upholds ₹10.54 Crore Arbitration Award Against CADA In Beed Irrigation Project
Case Title : The Chief Engineer and Chief Administrator, Command Area Development Authority & Ors. v. Hule Constructions Private Limited & Ors.
Case Number : Commercial Arbitration Appeal No. 2 of 2022 with Civil Application No. 10992 of 2022 in CARBA/2/2022
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 53
The Bombay High Court has recently upheld a Rs. 10.54 crore arbitral award arising from delays in the repair and renovation of 19 minor irrigation tanks in Beed district, holding the Command Area Development Authority responsible for stalling the project. A Division Bench of Justices Arun R. Pedneker and Vaishali Patil-Jadhav dismissed an appeal filed by senior officials of the authority and affirmed the Commercial Court's refusal to set aside the award.
The bench agreed with the arbitrator that the department could not rely on contractual clauses barring compensation after being found in breach of its own obligations. "Notwithstanding the clauses in the contract, when the party has failed to standby it's part of the contract, it is not available for the defaulting party to insist upon implementation of the clauses of the contract providing for no claim for idling of machinery or escalation of price. The argument raised is, thus, rejected.”, it said.
Individual Members Can't Stall Housing Society Redevelopment: Bombay High Court Reaffirms
Case Title : Real Infrastructure Company through its Partner Keshavji Damji Minat V/S Tilak Nagar Mahalaxmi Co-Operative Housing Society Limited and Ors.
Case Number : ARBITRATION PETITION (L) NO.40791 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 43
The Bombay High Court has held that an individual member of a cooperative housing society cannot refuse to vacate her flat and delay redevelopment after the society has approved the project and executed a development agreement. Justice Sandeep V. Marne reiterated members are bound by the development agreement signed by the society. "The individual members of the Co-operative Society are bound by covenants in the Development Agreement executed by the Society with the Developer and individual rights of a member are subservient to the obligations of the Society under the Development Agreement.", it said.
Case Title : Ningbo Aux Imp & Exp Co. Ltd. v. Amstrad Consumer India Pvt. Ltd. (formerly known as OVOT Pvt. Ltd.) & Anr.
Case Number : Commercial Arbitration Petition No. 983 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 50
The Bombay High Court has dismissed a petition filed by Ningbo Aux Imp & Exp Co. Ltd. seeking interim relief against Vijay Sales, holding that such relief cannot be granted once a foreign arbitral award has already been found unenforceable against that party. Justice Sandeep V. Marne noted that the foreign arbitral award in the case was passed only against Amstrad Consumer India Pvt. Ltd. Vijay Sales was not a party to the arbitration and had already been deleted from the award enforcement proceedings by an earlier court order that had attained finality.
“Once it is held in enforcement proceedings that there is no underlying liability against a third-party, Section 9 route cannot be adopted to fasten the very same liability against that party in an indirect manner. In the present case, it is held by the enforcement court that Vijay Sales has no liability to pay to the Petitioner under the award and enforcement proceedings are dismissed against it,” the court observed.
Case Title: State of Maharashtra v. M/s Patwardhan Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : Arbitration Appeal No. 33 of 2015
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 35
The Bombay High Court has set aside an arbitral award that granted toll loss compensation to a private concessionaire by treating pre-contract Minutes of Meeting as a binding part of the contract. Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan held that the arbitral tribunal had misread the contract, effectively converting a force majeure clause into a guaranteed revenue mechanism. The Court said this interpretation was an “impossible view,” “irrational,” and suffered from “manifest perversity,” and held that it violated the fundamental public policy of Indian law.
The court held that treating the meeting notes as a binding amendment effectively rewrote the contract and upset its basic risk-sharing structure. "What the Learned Arbitral Tribunal and the Section 34 Court have done is turn this on its head. They have simply taken the observations in the MOM to treat them as an amendment not just to the benchmark for compensating for a force majeure event but even for circumstances that do not even constitute a force majeure event," the court observed.
Case Title : Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. vs. Om Constraction on behalf of Om Constraction Nice Projects Limited JV
Case Number : Commercial Arbitration Petition (Lodg.) No. 28685 of 2024
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 36
The Bombay High Court has set aside a Rs 19.82 crore arbitral award against state-run Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., holding that the arbitral tribunal followed an “unusual process, unknown to law” and wrongly prevented the company from raising a defence that struck at the validity of the contract itself. Justice Sandeep V Marne said the arbitrator shut out HPCL from raising objections based on suppression and fraud after those facts came to light.
Justice Sandeep V Marne said the arbitrator shut out HPCL from raising objections based on suppression and fraud after those facts came to light. This, the court said, was against the most basic notions of justice. “It is clearly against the most basic notions of justice to disallow a party to raise the defence of validity of contract after it discovers the act of suppression,” the court observed, adding that the resulting award was “patently illegal.”
Bombay High Court Cautions Against Injunctions On Third Parties In Arbitration Cases
Case Title: Messse Frankfurt Trade Fairs India Pvt. Ltd. v. Netlink Solutions India Limited & Ors.
Case Number: COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION PETITION (L) NO. 40115 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 40
The Bombay High Court has dismissed a plea seeking interim relief pending arbitration by Messe Frankfurt Trade Fairs India Pvt. Ltd, the Indian arm of German exhibition organiser Messe Frankfurt, seeking interim relief to stop two trade exhibitions in Mumbai, reiterating that courts must be cautious while granting orders directly against third parties under the arbitration law.
Justice Sandeep V Marne said that while there is no absolute bar on granting interim relief against non-signatories, such power cannot be stretched in every case. "Though there may not be complete prohibition in law to make an order directly against a third party under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act, such power needs to be exercised sparingly. No case is made out by the Petitioner for exercise of such power against Respondent No. 6.", the court said. Crucially, the court noted that the exhibitions were being organised by a separate entity that was not a party to the arbitration agreement. Since the interim reliefs were sought directly against that third party and not as a consequence of restraining a contracting party, the court said such relief could not be granted on the facts of the case.
Interim Relief Can't Undo Completed Sale Or Replace Enforcement In Arbitration: Bombay High Court
Case Title : Telford Marine Dmcc v. Bhambhani Shipping Limited And Another
Case Number : COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 727 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 42
The Bombay High Court has dismissed a plea seeking to stop the sale of a vessel and secure an arbitral award, holding that once a sale is completed, the court cannot restrain the transaction or use interim relief to indirectly enforce an award. Justice Sandeep V. Marne said interim protection under the arbitration law is meant to prevent imminent dissipation of assets.
It cannot be used to undo a concluded transaction or as a substitute for enforcement proceedings. “The sale of the Ship has taken place. Whether it is a valid transfer within the meaning of Section 42 of the Merchants Shipping Act is not required to be adjudicated in the present petition,” the court said. “Section 9 remedy would ordinarily be available only when it is demonstrated that the award creditor is in the process of seeking enforcement of the award but there is imminent danger of dissipation of the assets,” It added.
Arbitration Cannot Be Invoked Beyond Contractually Agreed Monetary Limits: Bombay High Court
Case Title : M/S. Sowil Limited v. Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction) Bhusawal
Case Number : COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION APPLICATION NO. 688 OF 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 51
The Bombay High Court has held that where parties have contractually agreed to restrict arbitration only to disputes up to a specified percentage of the contract value, courts cannot compel arbitration for claims exceeding that agreed limit. Justice Sandeep V. Marne emphasised that arbitration is founded on party autonomy, under which parties are free to determine not only whether disputes will be arbitrated but also which categories or value of disputes will be subject to arbitration. Emphasising this principle, the Court observed, “Once arbitration agreement is arrived at, it does not mean that every dispute has to be resolved only by arbitration.
It is for parties to decide whether all or selective disputes are to be resolved by arbitration. Parties here have clearly intended that claims of only particular value would be adjudicated through arbitration while claims exceeding the agreed value would be resolved through other remedies. It is for the parties to agree as to whether the disputes would be resolved through arbitration or not and the Court cannot force the parties to have the disputes resolved through the mechanism of private arbitration.”
Bombay High Court Says Arbitrator Right To Decide Claim on Work Performed, Not Alleged Admission
Case Title : Kanti Builders Pvt. Ltd. v. Witty Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : Commercial Arbitration Petition (L) No. 33334 of 2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 49
The Bombay High Court has refused to interfere with an arbitral award after finding that the contractor itself chose to press a claim based on the value of work carried out, and could not later ask the court to enforce a higher amount on the basis of an alleged admission of liability. Dismissing a petition filed by Kanti Builders Pvt Ltd, the Court said the arbitral tribunal was justified in deciding the dispute on evidence of work executed rather than on letters or a dishonoured cheque relied upon later. Justice Sandeep V. Marne upheld the approach of the sole arbitrator, noting that the tribunal had undertaken a detailed factual exercise to assess what was actually payable under the construction contract.
The Court observed that “the Tribunal rightly not got swayed by alleged admissions contained in the letter dated 12 August 2021 and undated letter.” It said the arbitrator had examined the exact liability under the contract instead of mechanically accepting claimed figures.
'Karta' Personally Liable if HUF is Unable to Satisfy Arbitral Award: Bombay HC
Case Title: Manjeet Singh T. Anand v. Nishant Enterprises HUF & Anr.
Case Number: Interim Application No. 5306 of 2025 in Comm. Execution Application No. 19 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 31
The Bombay High Court declared that a 'Karta' has a personal and unlimited liability for satisfying unpaid arbitral dues of a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF), thereby enabling creditors to proceed against the Karta's private assets without a separate decree. In a major boost for award creditors, the Bench of Justice R.I Chagla held that the "seat court" retains the jurisdiction to execute an arbitral award and provide interim relief, even if the judgment debtor's assets are situated outside of its territorial jurisdiction.
The Court noted that the arbitral tribunal's refusal to pass a separate money award against the Karta did not bar execution against him, as questions of Hindu law liability “never and could never even arise for consideration before the Arbitral Tribunal.” Since the HUF admittedly carried on business, the Karta's personal assets were held reachable in execution.
Case Title: Sunfield Global Pte Limited v. Liberty Investments Private Limited
Case Number: Commercial Arbitration Petition (L) NO.34540 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 29
The Bombay High Court has refused to grant interim relief to a Singapore-based company, holding that once a foreign-seated arbitral tribunal is constituted, Indian courts should be slow in entertaining unless the party shows that the tribunal cannot provide an effective remedy. Justice Bharati Dangre clarified that this principle applies even to foreign-seated arbitrations.
While Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act (for interim relief) can be invoked in such cases, the bar under Section 9(3) (bar on relief after constitution of arbitral tribunal) still operates after the tribunal is in place. “Without taking recourse to the remedy available to move the Arbitral Tribunal, the Petitioner has approached this Court by invoking Section 9… in the wake of the embargo created under sub-section (3) as the Tribunal is already constituted and the better course available to a party is to approach the Tribunal, and in this case, I do not find that the Tribunal is lacking power to consider such a request,” the court said.
Case Title: Ramesh Venkateshwar Somani v. Rajesh Somani & Ors.
Case Number: Commercial Arbitration Petition NO. 210 OF 2023 along with Interim Application No. 379 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 28
In Commercial Arbitration Petition No. 210 OF 2023 The Bombay High Court upheld an arbitral award involving a long-standing family dispute over shares in a demerged company. Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan held the arbitral tribunal's decision—that a later sale to a bona fide purchaser takes precedence over an earlier conditional arrangement—to be a plausible and well-reasoned conclusion. “The finding that the 2012 Agreement was a much wider Agreement would not mean that the Learned Arbitral Tribunal exceeded its scope.
The Learned Arbitral Tribunal was fully entitled to compare the competing considerations that were clamouring for favourable consideration by the Learned Arbitral Tribunal, between the two instruments, in order to adjudicate the disputes between the parties.Likewise, the Learned Arbitral Tribunal's reference to and reliance on the sale of office premises does not result in the Learned Arbitral Tribunal having gone outside the scope of the reference to arbitration as set out in the Reference Order”, the court held.
Case Title: Lotus Logistics and Developers Pvt Ltd v. Evertop Apartments Co-operative Housing Society Ltd
Case Number: Commercial Arbitration Petition (L) No. 34791 of 2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 27
The Bombay High Court held that the principle barring specific performance of a terminated contract is not an absolute rule and is subject to an exception where subsequent conduct of parties indicates revival of contractual obligations, particularly in arbitration proceedings. Justice Sandeep V. Marne made the observation while hearing a petition filed by Lotus Logistics and Developers Pvt. Ltd, challenging an arbitral award passed in favour of Evertop Apartments Co-operative Housing Society Ltd.
It observed: “In my view therefore, the principle of impermissibility to seek specific performance of terminated contract is subject to exception of intervening event of revival of contract. The principle would apply only to a case where the contract is treated as at end by Plaintiff as on the date of filing of the suit. In a case where the contract is terminated, but subsequently parties act in performance of contract, Plaintiff would not be debarred forever from seeking specific performance merely because at one point of time, he elected to put an end to the contract.” The court clarified that the bar against seeking specific performance of a terminated contract applies only where the plaintiff treats the contract as finally ended as on the date of filing proceedings.
Bombay High Court Grants Interim Relief To Aditya Birla Housing In Dispute With Axis Bank
Case Title : Aditya Birla Housing Finance Ltd v. Axis Bank Ltd & Ors.
Case Number : Commercial Arbitration Petition No. 104 of 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 37
The Bombay High Court has granted interim protection to Aditya Birla Housing Finance Ltd after finding that Axis Bank, despite knowing that its loan was being taken over, allowed borrowers to misuse a small unpaid balance to continue operating an overdraft account and retain custody of mortgaged title deeds. Justice Sandeep V. Marne held that interim measures were necessary to protect the subject matter of arbitration between Aditya Birla Housing and the borrowers, even though the relief operated against Axis Bank, which is not a party to the loan agreement.
The court observed that in the arbitration between Aditya Birla Housing and the borrowers, relief would necessarily be sought in respect of the mortgaged property. “This is how the arbitral proceedings are bound to affect the Axis Bank,” it said. It further held, “If the interim measures are not granted against Axis Bank, it would frustrate the Petitioner's claim against the borrowers by selling the subject property. Petitioner would suffer irreparable loss if interim measures are not granted.” On that basis, the court concluded that "making interim measures against the third party–Axis Bank is clearly warranted in the facts of the present case."
Case Title: Sharekhan Limited v. Monita Kisan Khade & Anr.
Case Nos.: Arbitration Petition Nos. 532 & 557 of 2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 18
The Bombay High Court recently ruled that mere violation of SEBI's trade confirmation circular does not automatically make a broker liable for market losses, and it set aside arbitral awards that directed stockbroker Sharekhan Limited to reimburse investors for losses sustained in Futures and Options (F&O) trading. The Single Bench on 24th December, 2025, decided that investors who authorised an individual to trade on their behalf could not thereafter retract those trades and shift losses to the broker.
Justice Sandeep V. Marne held that clients who “relied on skills and took the risks in the volatility of the stock market, cannot later turn around and disown the trade transactions”, noting that regulatory violations may invite disciplinary action but do not automatically create civil liability for losses. behalf and consciously accept the risks of market volatility, they cannot later deny responsibility for those trades merely because the broker failed to maintain written or recorded pre-trade confirmations. In cases of blatantly unauthorised trading, the investor cannot be saddled with losses and the broker would be liable. However, where investors admit authorising a third party to trade for them, they cannot disown the resulting trades or losses.
Following the principles laid down in cases of Ulhas Dandekar v. Sushil Financial Services Private Limited, Erach Khavar v. Nirmal Bang Securities Private Limited and Peerless Securities Limited v. Vostok (Far East) Securities Private Limited, the court noted that SEBI/NSE circular violations may attract regulatory action but do not automatically create civil liability for market losses.
Case Title: Godrej And Boyce Manufacturing Company Limited Versus : Remi Sales And Engineering Limited
Case Number: Commercial Arbitration Petition No. 232 Of 2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 19
The Bombay High Court dismissed a petition under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ("Arbitration Act"), holding that once goods are put to use by the buyer, such conduct amounts to deemed acceptance under section 42 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 ("SOGA"), the buyer cannot later reject the goods on the ground of alleged defects. A claim for damages can be filed for breach of warranty but goods cannot be rejected, the court ruled.
Justice Sandeep V. Marne refused to interfere with an arbitral award that directed Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Company Limited (“Petitioner”) to pay over ₹4.25 crore to Remi Sales and Engineering Limited (“Respondent”) for stainless steel tubes supplied under a purchase order.
The Court observed: “Thus clause 6(b) does not constitute contractual variation with deeming fiction of 'acceptance' under Section 42 of the Sale of Goods Act and even if it is held to be contractual variation, Petitioner has failed to prove that the tubes were not in accordance with specifications. In my view, therefore the provisions of Section 42 of the Sale of Goods Act have rightly been invoked by the Arbitral Tribunal. The act of the Petitioner of inserting the tubes in the heat exchangers constitutes the act of doing something which is inconsistent with the ownership of the seller.”
Case Title: Imax Corporation vs E-City Entertainment (I) Pvt Ltd & Ors
Case Number: Commercial Arbitration Appeal (CARBA) (L) No. 38267 of 2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 20
The Bombay High Court has recently restored enforcement proceedings initiated by IMAX Corporation for execution of foreign arbitral awards against E-City Entertainment (I) Pvt Ltd for breach of contractual obligations, holding that the doctrine of res judicata applies even between different stages of the same enforcement petition. The court said it cannot revisit an objection of limitation merely because subsequent judgments may have taken a different legal view.
Allowing IMAX's appeal, the court's division bench observed that the limitation issue had already been decided by the Supreme Court and could not be reopened by the court. It clarified that res judicata applies even between different stages of the same proceedings, and a subsequent change in legal interpretation does not permit a court to revisit a binding earlier order. It said enforcement courts cannot re-examine the merits of a foreign award or expand the scope of “public policy” objection.
Case Title: Phalke Niketan Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. v. Adit Enterprises
Case Number: Arbitration Petition No. 29 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 11
The Bombay High Court has held that a civil suit filed by individual members of a housing society against a developer does not amount to abandonment of the arbitration clause in a redevelopment agreement. The Court said such a decision can be taken only by the society acting as a collective body.
A Single-Judge Bench of Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan said that once a co-operative housing society is formed, individual members give up their separate will to the collective will of the society. Courts cannot infer the society's intent from the conduct of its members.
The court held that support for the members' suit did not make it a suit by the society. Nor did it prevent the society from terminating the agreement and appointing a new developer. There was no basis to conclude that the arbitration agreement had been abandoned.
Bombay High Court Sets Aside Arbitral Award Passed With “Undue Haste” After Four-Year Delay
Case Title: Amit Engineers v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number: Commercial Arbitration Petition No. 847 of 2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 5
The Bombay High Court has set aside an arbitral award, holding that it was passed in undue haste after nearly four years of inaction and without giving the parties any opportunity of hearing.
A Single Bench of Justice Sandeep V Marne found that the arbitrator acted with undue haste and in clear breach of natural justice.
Rejecting the explanation offered for the long delay, the Court said, “The explanation put forth by the Arbitrator for the delay is factually incorrect. The Arbitrator has not heard the parties before making the Award. No evidence is recorded. No arguments are heard.”
Setting aside the arbitral award, the court said that the arbitrator “clearly misconducted” himself by calling three meetings held years earlier hearings on “many occasions”, by taking shelter under a non-existent pandemic to explain the delay, and by suddenly rushing to deliver the award after learning that his substitution was being sought.
Software Ownership Disputes Involving IPR Not Arbitrable: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Anand Khosala v Punam Kumari Singh
Case Number: Commercial Arbitration Petition No. 228 of 2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 10
The Bombay High Court has recently held that an arbitral tribunal was right in refusing to decide who owns a software product, saying such questions involve intellectual property rights that affect the public at large (rights in rem) and cannot be settled through private arbitration. A Single-Judge Bench of Justice Sandeep V Marne said that deciding ownership of the “Test Magic” software would inevitably involve ruling on trademark and copyright rights, which are not meant for arbitration.
The court said any decision on whether the trademark or software belonged to Singh or the LLP would amount to deciding rights against the whole world (right in rem). It added that such questions cannot be settled in arbitration, and clarified that Khosla and the LLP were free to approach a civil court if they wanted to restrain Singh or her husband from using, selling, or licensing the software. Finding no ground to interfere, the court dismissed the petition.
Court Intervention In Arbitrator Appointment Required Only If Institution Fails: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Jalaram Fabrics v. Nisarg Textiles Pvt. Ltd
Case Number: Arbitration Petition No. 267 of 2024 with Interim Application (L) No. 35308 of 2022
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 12
The Bombay High Court has held that court intervention for the appointment of arbitrators is required only when an arbitral institution fails to discharge its designated functions in appointing an arbitrator. A single-judge bench of Justice Sandeep V Marne held that once parties agree to resolve disputes through an arbitral institution, the appointment procedure prescribed by that institution must be followed.
“In case of an institutional arbitration, application for appointment of Arbitrator under Section 11(6) needs to be made only when the institute fails to perform its functions. In a case where the arbitration institute proceeds ahead by appointing the arbitrators and conducts arbitral proceedings, it is not necessary to approach the Court under Section 11(6) merely because one of the parties refuses to concur in appointment of arbitrator by the institute.”, the court observed.
SARFAESI Involves Enforcement, Not Adjudication; Does Not Bar Arbitration: Bombay High Court
Case Title : Tata Capital Housing Financing Ltd vs Inderjeet Sahni and others
Case Number : Commercial Arbitration Application (L) No .35431 of 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 58
The Bombay High Court on Monday held that initiation of proceedings under the SARFAESI Act does not bar arbitration between a lender and a borrower. The court clarified that SARFAESI proceedings are meant only for enforcement of security and do not involve adjudication of disputes. Arbitration, it held, is an adjudicatory process and can proceed in parallel. Justice Sandeep V. Marne made the observations while hearing petitions filed by Tata Capital Housing Finance Ltd seeking appointment of an arbitrator and interim relief against its borrowers under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
However, the court observed that proceedings under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act stand on a different footing. “Like arbitration proceedings, even proceedings under the RDDB Act are adjudicatory in nature as the arbitrator or the DRT adjudicates the claim of the banks or financial institutions.On the other hand, the remedy under the SARFAESI Act is merely in the nature of enforcement where no adjudication takes place. This is yet another reason why mere initiation of proceedings under the SARFAESI Act cannot be a ground for not permitting adjudicatory proceedings under the Arbitration Act and vice versa,” the court observed.
Case Title : State of Maharashtra vs Morya Infrastructure Pvt Ltd Beed
Case Number : COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION APPEAL NO. 01 OF 2023
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 86
The Bombay High Court at Aurangabad has dismissed the State of Maharashtra's challenge to an arbitral award of Rs. 596.60 lakhs, holding that objections to the constitution of the arbitral tribunal cannot be raised after filing of the written statement, counter-claim and commencement of evidence.
A Division Bench of Justices Arun R. Pedneker and Vaishali Patil-Jadhav on February 16, 2026, upheld the Commercial Court's May 6, 2022, order refusing to set aside the award dated February 11, 2018.
“In such circumstances, the objection raised at a belated stage, after filing of the written statement, counter-claim and after commencement of evidence, is clearly not in consonance with Section 16(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which mandates that a plea as to the lack of jurisdiction or improper constitution of the arbitral tribunal shall be raised not later than the submission of the statement of defence,” the court observed.
Case Title : Dealmoney Commodities Pvt. Ltd. v. Vijay Vithal Sawant & Anr.
Case Number : Commercial Arbitration Petition (L) Nos. 1665 & 1700 of 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 81
The Bombay High Court upheld an arbitral finding that Dealmoney Commodities Pvt Ltd executed “blatantly unauthorised” Futures and Options trades in the accounts of a retired couple, which resulted in the depletion of their investment portfolio, and restored compensation of over Rs. 33 lakh with 18 percent interest.
A Single Bench of Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh confirmed the investors' entitlement to Rs. 17,76,581 and Rs.15,32,073 respectively, with interest at 18 percent per annum from August 10, 2020, till payment, along with costs of Rs 25,000.
“The call transcripts precisely prove that the initiation of the trade was not by the Respondent but by the Petitioner's employee without any authorisation which renders the trades blatantly unauthorised. ,” the court observed.
Case Title : A. Navinchandra Steel Private Limited & Ors. v. Board of Directors of Abhyudaya Co-Op. Bank Ltd. & Ors.
Case Number : INTERIM APPLICATION (LODGING) NO.1785 OF 2026 [IN COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 742 of 2025]
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 79
The Bombay High Court has recently held that a multi-state co-operative bank can recover its loan dues through arbitration under Section 84 of the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002, which provides for statutory dispute resolution in matters concerning the business of such societies, and is not confined to approaching the Debt Recovery Tribunal under the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993.
Dismissing challenges to arbitral awards obtained by Abhyudaya Co-operative Bank Ltd, Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh ruled that there is no exclusive jurisdiction with the Tribunal under the RDB Act.
The Court said, “The statutory provision of RDB Act does not place an absolute embargo on the mechanism provided under the MSCS Act and on the contrary, admits of the right of a multi State co-operative society to initiate proceedings under MSCS Act to recover debts”.
Bombay High Court Upholds ₹32 Crore Arbitral Award Against Solapur Municipal Corporation
Case Title : The Commissioner, Solapur Municipal Corporation & Ors. v. M/s S.M.C.-G.E.C.P. Ltd (JV) with M/s S.M.C.-G.E.C.P. Ltd (JV) v. The Commissioner, Solapur Municipal Corporation & Ors.
Case Number : Commercial Arbitration Petition No. 444 of 2024 with Commercial Arbitration Petition No. 252 of 2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 72
The Bombay High Court rejected a challenge by the Solapur Municipal Corporation (SMC) against an arbitral award directing it to pay over ₹32 crore to a joint venture contractor. Justice Sandeep V. Marne, while upholding the award, observed that once it is established that project delays were attributable to the civic body's failures, all subsequent penalties and blacklisting orders against the contractor were rightly set aside. He held that the Award in the present case, dated 18th June 2020, “appears to be unexceptional warranting dismissal of the Arbitration Petition.”
The Court explained that once termination is found unjustified, awarding a reasonable percentage of unexecuted work as damages is justified. Noting that the Tribunal followed the same approach, the Court held that "the objection raised on behalf of the Municipal Corporation about absence of any evidence to prove actual cause of loss is misplaced deserving rejection.”
Housing Society Bound By Arbitration Clause In Individual Sale Agreements: Bombay High Court
Case Title : Shree Dev Shasan Jain Shwetambar Murtipujak Trust v. Veer Tower CHS Ltd. & Bhadra Enterprises v. Veer Tower CHS Ltd.
Case Number : Arbitration Application No. 103 of 2025 and Arbitration Application No. 360 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 73
The Bombay High Court held that a co-operative housing society, although a distinct legal entity, is a “veritable party” to the agreements signed by its individual members and is therefore bound by the arbitration clauses embedded within them. The Single Bench of Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan, emphasised that when a society is formed specifically to represent the collective interests of homebuyers, it inherits the obligations of arbitration contained in the individual sale agreements, and disputes arising from those agreements must be resolved through arbitration.
The Bench referred the dispute to arbitration and appointed Justice (Retd.) Akil Kureshi as the Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate all disputes between the parties.
The Court observed: “The very nature of the arrangement is that each constituent of the Society is a party to an arbitration agreement and when they form a society on the very same subject matter of their bilateral agreements, it would be a classic example of the Society being a veritable party to the collective arbitration agreement.”
Pending CBI Probe Not Adjudication: Bombay High Court Upholds Arbitral Award Against Central Railway
Case Title : Union of India v. M/s. Bridge Track And Tower Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : Arbitration Petition No. 221 of 2023
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 62
The Bombay High Court on Wednesday held that Central Railway cannot withhold undisputed payments to a contractor merely because a criminal case is pending in relation to another supply. The Court said a CBI investigation does not amount to adjudication under a contract and cannot, by itself, justify retaining money that is otherwise payable. A single bench of Justice Gauri Godse held that the Railways were required to first raise a recovery claim and subject it to adjudication before exercising any lien under the contract. It held, “Findings recorded in criminal proceedings would not bind the civil proceedings, if any, initiated by the petitioner to recover the amount alleged to have been fraudulently recovered by the respondent. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled to charge a lien on the amounts due and payable for the goods admittedly supplied under the first purchase order by relying upon its right to keep a lien on the ground that a criminal proceeding is pending regarding the amounts recovered by the respondent under the second purchase order.”
Bombay High Court Sets Aside ₹1.17-Crore Arbitral Award Enforcing Off-Book Cash Claims
Case Title : Jinam Arihant Realtors And Ors. v. Neha Yogesh Sachde
Case Number : Arbitration Petition (L) No. 20865 of 2023
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 65
The Bombay High Court has set aside an arbitral award directing a real estate partnership to pay over Rs 1.17 crore to a former partner, holding that the award sought to enforce rights allegedly arising from illegal and undocumented cash transactions. Allowing the challenge, Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan held that the arbitral tribunal had enforced rights flowing from a partnership arrangement that was shown to operate entirely outside lawful accounting. The court warned that if such transactions were allowed to be enforced, it would collapse the distinction between legal contracts and illegal bargains. "If such transactions, that are blatantly contrary to the rule of law, were to be permitted to be enforced by the legal system, there would be no difference between enforcement of a valid and legal contract and enforcement of bargains that are evidently in direct conflict with law", the court observed.
Bombay High Court Says Award-Holder Has No Right to Retain Deposit After Arbitral Award Is Set Aside
Case Title : Rashtriya Chemicals & Fertilizers Limited Vs. Thermax Limited
Case Number : Interim Application (L) No. 42351 of 2025 in Commercial Arbitration Appeal (L) No. 42190 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 56
The Bombay High Court recently held that Rashtriya Chemicals and Fertilizers Limited has no right to retain Rs 218.45 crore deposited by Thermax after the arbitral award in its favour was set aside, making it clear that the pendency of an appeal cannot be used to hold on to the money. A Division Bench of Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Gautam A. Ankhad said the legal position was straightforward once the award no longer existed. The court noted, “There is no arbitral award in existence, and, therefore, there is no question of the respondent suffering rigors of the arbitral award.” The court noted that the deposit was made only because the award and the interim order were in place. Once the award was struck down, Thermax could not be made to suffer the consequences of an award that no longer existed.
Arbitral Tribunals Cannot Grant Equity-Based Relief Unless Authorised By Contract: Bombay High Court
Case Title : Nirmal Bang Securities Pvt Ltd vs Shashi Mehra HUF
Case Number : Arbitration Petition No. 304 of 2024
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 59
The Bombay High Court has held that arbitral tribunals must decide disputes strictly in accordance with the contract and applicable law and cannot grant relief based on "notions of equity or fairness" unless the parties have expressly authorised such an approach. Setting aside an arbitral award directing a refund of brokerage, the court held that arbitrators are not courts of law empowered to dispense equitable relief and that once transactions are held to be authorised, their contractual consequences cannot be undone on equitable considerations alone. A single-judge bench of Justice Sandeep V. Marne made the observation while allowing a petition filed by Nirmal Bang Securities Pvt. Ltd., a registered stockbroker, which had challenged an appellate arbitral award passed under the dispute resolution framework of the National Stock Exchange. "Arbitral Tribunals are not courts of law who can invoke notions of equity or fairness unless the parties confer such jurisdiction under Section 28(2)," it held It further observed that even if regulatory or procedural lapses were established, such lapses may invite action by market regulators but cannot justify nullifying the contractual consequences of authorised transactions.
Case Title : Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority v. Mumbai Metro One Private Limited along with IA and Connected Matter
Case Number : Commercial Arbitration Petition No. 427 of 2024
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 97
The Bombay High Court has partly upheld the Rs. 496.48 crore arbitral award in favour of Mumbai Metro One Private Limited arising from the Metro Line 1 project, but has set aside nearly Rs. 248 crore awarded under three heads of damages, finding that those components were not backed by evidence.
Justice Sandeep V. Marne underscored that courts are required to respect the finality of arbitral awards and cannot interfere lightly. At the same time, he made it clear that intervention is justified where findings are perverse, legally untenable, or unsupported by evidence.
It observed, "Guesswork cannot be a short cut for production of evidence. Guesswork can be undertaken only when it is impossible to compute the exact quantum of losses suffered by the injured party. If evidence of sufferance of loss itself is not available, the Arbitral Tribunal cannot award damages of lesser sum than the one by presuming holding that some loss must have been suffered. When award of damages itself is not warranted due to absence of evidence, awarded claim cannot be sustained before Section 34 Court because the Tribunal awards far lesser sum or conservative sum than the one demanded."
Case Title : Khimchand Prithviraj Kothari Versus M/s. Earth Realtors
Case Number : Commercial Arbitration Petition (L) No. 37842 Of 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 94
The Bombay High Court has partly modified an arbitral tribunal's interim order in a redevelopment dispute, holding that the tribunal exceeded the scope of interim protection in prescribing the manner in which Transferable Development Rights (TDR) could be sold.
Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan was hearing an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, filed by landowner Khimchand Prithviraj Kothari against an interim order passed in favour of developer Earth Realtors.
“A plain reading of the right of first refusal framework… would indicate a new contractual arrangement that has been created,” the court observed. The court modified the directions to require prior notice to both the owner and the arbitral tribunal before any TDR sale, made such sale subject to tribunal approval, and directed that the proceeds be deposited in a separate bank account to be used only for redevelopment, with monthly disclosures.
Case Title : SSD Escatics Private Limited v. Goregaon Pearl Cooperative Housing Society Limited
Case Number : Commercial Arbitration Petition No. 354 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 171
The Bombay High Court has held that a contractual clause barring damages or compensation in a redevelopment agreement is enforceable but does not restrict the statutory right of a developer to seek restoration of benefits under Section 64 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. Justice Sandeep V. Marne partly set aside an arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, holding that while the arbitrator was justified in denying damages in view of Clause 22 of the Development Agreement, the rejection of the developer's claim for restoration of benefits was erroneous.
On the issue of enforceability of Clause 22, the Court held: “In my view, a clause in the redevelopment agreement for denial of damages or compensation to the developer can be enforced in law because of the peculiarity of the contract”.
Case Title : Exelixi Management Company Pvt. Ltd. v. Nishi Retails Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : Arbitration Petition No. 141 of 2018
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 108
The Bombay High Court has recently refused to set aside an ex-parte arbitral award arising out of a commercial toy retail franchise dispute, holding that the absence of a physical signature on a contract would not invalidate the arbitrator's finding that an arbitration agreement existed, particularly where correspondence between the parties indicated reliance on the agreement.
A single bench of Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan observed that “the absence of an actual physical signature would not come in the way of the reasonableness of the arbitrator's findings. Exchange of correspondence too can constitute an arbitration agreement”.
Case Title : Satnam Singh Ahuja And Ors. Versus Karvy Financial Services Ltd.
Case Number : ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 324 OF 2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 114
The Bombay High Court has recently reiterated that arbitral awards passed by an arbitrator unilaterally appointed by one party are liable to be set aside and that such illegality cannot be cured merely because the opposing party participated in the arbitration proceedings without raising an objection.
Applying the Supreme Court's recent ruling in Bhadra International (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Airports Authority of India, the court further reiterated that waiver of an arbitrator's ineligibility under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is permissible only through an express written agreement executed after the dispute arises and cannot be inferred from a party's conduct or participation in proceedings.
Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan held, “Evidently, the vice of unilateral appointment of an Arbitrator is not curable by uncontested participation in the arbitration proceedings. Evidently, equity would not supplant the law, and there is no scope for supplementing the law declared on the anvil of uncontested participation before the unilaterally appointed arbitrator.”
Case Title : M/s Space Master Realtors v. Mulund Sandhyaprakash CHS Ltd. & Anr.
Case Number : Arbitration Application (L) No. 35545 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 117
The Bombay High Court recently refused to appoint an arbitrator in a dispute arising out of a housing redevelopment project in Mumbai, holding that a dissenting flat owner who had deliberately refused to sign the development agreement could not be compelled to arbitrate claims brought by the developer.
Justice Sandeep V. Marne observed that arbitration is founded on consent and that the mere fact that redevelopment arrangements involve multiple interconnected agreements cannot bind a non-signatory to an arbitration clause.
The court said, “A member who dissents from the decision taken by the society and refuses to sign the Development Agreement, but is forced to act in terms of DA by application of principle of loss of individuality vis-à-vis society, cannot be treated as a veritable party to the DA and particularly to the arbitration agreement contained therein."
Bombay High Court Upholds Arbitral Award In Polimer-Ultra Media 'Jai Hanuman' License Fee Dispute
Case Title : Polimer Media Pvt Ltd vs Ultra Media and Entertainment Pvt Ltd
Case Number : ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 215 OF 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 112
The Bombay High Court on 5 March upheld an arbitral award directing Polimer Media Pvt Ltd to pay Rs. 30.45 lakh to Ultra Media and Entertainment Pvt Ltd in a dispute arising from a broadcasting license agreement for the television serial “Jai Hanuman.”
A Bench of Justice Gauri Godse held that the arbitral award did not warrant interference under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
The Court observed:
“Hence, in my view, by applying the standards as set out in the various decisions as discussed above, the arbitral award cannot be interfered with under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. The petition is therefore dismissed.”
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", it held.
Case Title : NHAI PIU Aurangabad v. Kerman Sam Amroliwala & Anr.; and Kerman Sam Amroliwala v. Competent Authority (Land Acquisition) & Anr.
Case Number : Arbitration Appeal No. 14 of 2016 and Arbitration Appeal No. 4 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 143
The Bombay High Court has dismissed the National Highways Authority of India's (NHAI) appeal, finding no patent illegality in the arbitral award enhancing compensation to a petrol pump owner after partial acquisition of land for highway expansion resulted in loss of business access. Justice Arun R. Pednekar upheld an arbitral award revising land compensation from Rs 595 to Rs 1,190 per square metre and granting compensation for loss of income, easementary rights, and business impact, while remanding the matter only for recalculation of statutory benefits in accordance with law. “The competent authority as well as arbitrator has fixed the loss of income of 10% which is reasonable and based on the material produced on record and that this Court in exercise of powers under section 37 cannot interfere with the same as it cannot be said that it is against the public policy of India nor it can be said that there is patent illegality", it observed.
Case Title : National Highway Authority of India v. Suresh Pandharinath Matre & Ors. (and connected matters)
Case Number : Arbitration Appeal Nos. 10 to 32 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 151
The Bombay High Court at Aurangabad has recently held that the time limit for making an arbitral award under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, does not apply to arbitrations conducted under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956, as the Arbitration Act applies only to the limited extent provided under Section 3G(6) and only where it is not inconsistent with the special statutory scheme. “Both the National Highways Act and the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 are Central enactments. Nevertheless, the application of the Arbitration Act, 1996 is by way of reference and only to the extent provided under Section 3G(6).", it said. "The application of Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to arbitrations conducted under the National Highways Act, 1956 would render the statutory scheme of appointment of arbitrators and conduct of proceedings of the arbitrator under the National Highways Act unworkable," it added.
Bombay High Court Directs Gagan Ace Developers To Deposit Rs. 7.81 Crore Arbitral Award For Stay
Case Title : M/s. Gagan Ace Developers and Anr. v. M/s. Choice and Ors.
Case Number : Writ Petition No. 1298 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 153
The Bombay High Court on 18 March upheld a District Judge's order under Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, directing Gagan Ace Developers to deposit the entire arbitral award amount of Rs. 7.81 crore along with interest as a condition for stay. A Single Bench comprising Justice N.J. Jamadar held that the developers failed to make out any exceptional circumstances warranting an unconditional stay of the award in their dispute with Choice, a partnership firm primarily involved in real estate development and construction. “The conspectus of aforesaid consideration is that the Petitioners cannot be said to have succeeded in making out an exceptional case. Nor could it be demonstrated that the Petitioners would suffer a substantial loss if the execution of the award is not stayed. The fact that the Petitioners have suffered an arbitral award, which directs payment, by itself, cannot be construed as a substantial loss", it held.
Case Title : Jupicos Entertainment Private Limited v Probability Sports (India) Private Limited & Anr.
Case Number : Commercial Arbitration Application (L) No. 18608 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 155
The Bombay High Court on Monday referred to arbitration a dispute over participation rights in the T20 Mumbai League between Jupicos Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. and league operator Probability Sports (India) Pvt. Ltd. The dispute relates to Jupicos' right to continue participating in the league through its team Shivaji Park Lions. Holding that MCA had a decisive role in conducting the league and had participated in the performance and termination of the contract, the Single Bench of Justice Sandeep V. Marne ruled that MCA is a veritable party to the arbitration agreement and cannot be excluded from the arbitral proceedings. The Court observed, “MCA is fully, completely and absolutely involved in conduct of the League. Without its approvals, it is not permissible for any team to participate in the League. The PA cannot neither be performed nor can be terminated without the approval of MCA. If conduct of MCA relating to subject matter (League) is taken into consideration, there can be little doubt that MCA has directly dealt with the applicant, thereby exhibiting clear intention of being bound by PA read with Supplementary Agreement. In my view therefore, after applying the tests laid down by Constitution Bench in Cox and Kings Ltd (supra), there can be little doubt to the position that MCA is a veritable party to the arbitration agreement contained in the PA.”
Acceptance Of Insurance Claim Under Protest Not 'Accord And Satisfaction': Bombay High Court
Case Title : Oriental Insurance Company v Add On Retail Pvt Ltd
Case Number : COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION PETITION (L) NO. 30675 OF 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 166
The Bombay High Court held that when a claimant accepts the amount offered by an insurer under protest, such acceptance does not bar the claimant from seeking a higher amount before an arbitral tribunal. Justice Gauri Godse upheld an arbitral award enhancing the compensation payable to the insured after finding an error in the surveyor's assessment. The Court rejected the insurer's contention that the insured's acceptance of the amount amounted to accord and satisfaction. It observed: “However, in the present case, there is no admitted claim, and the controversy concerns the application of the principle of accord and satisfaction in light of the claimant's letter dated 16th October 2018 and the discharge voucher signed under protest. I have already recorded reasons that the said letter and the discharge voucher cannot be accepted as a full and final settlement of the claim. Hence, in view of the well established legal principles as discussed in the above paragraphs, the said letter and the discharge voucher cannot be accepted as accord and satisfaction of the claim.”
Figures In Conciliator's Report Do Not Bind Arbitrator: Bombay High Court
Case Title : ICICI Securities Ltd vs Riddhi Siddhi Investment and Anr
Case Number : COMM. ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 390 OF 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 158
The Bombay High Court on 17 March dismissed a petition filed by ICICI Securities Ltd, holding that the amount indicated in a conciliator's report does not constitute an award and does not bind the Arbitral Tribunal in determining the final claim. Justice Sandeep V. Marne upheld an arbitral award of Rs. 23.30 lakh passed in favour of Ridhi Siddhi Investment in a stock trading dispute arising out of margin trading transactions. The Court observed: “Thus, the amount indicated in the report of the Conciliator does not become the amount awarded to any party or against any party. The said amount has relevance only for the purpose of determination of payment of fees by the claimant for online arbitration. The amount reflected in the report of the Conciliator does not bind the arbitrator, who is not precluded from awarding the claim in the sum higher than the one reflected in the report of the Conciliator.”
Case Title : Reliance Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd vs Hiroo Hotchand Advani & Ors
Case Number : COMMERCIAL EXECUTION APPLICATION NO.43 OF 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 168
The Bombay High Court held that Reliance Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd, having encashed Rs 18.64 lakh offered by borrowers towards full and final settlement without first communicating any objection, must be deemed to have accepted the settlement. It ruled that the company's subsequent claim that the amount was accepted “under protest” was not a valid revocation and that the arbitral awards stood satisfied. Justice Abhay Ahuja held that once the amount was encashed without prior protest, the creditor could not later dispute the settlement or seek recovery of any further dues. “Admittedly, the Applicant had deposited the demand draft of Rs.18,64,351/- which was offered in full and final settlement by the Respondents and then the communication seeking to raise an issue of incorrect calculations, and that execution proceedings had been initiated for recovery stating that therefore, under protest, the demand draft has been deposited and the same would be adjusted against the total outstanding decretal dues, cannot be said to be a valid revocation as what is offered on condition must be taken as it is offered and the Applicant having encashed the demand draft without first communicating to the Respondents that they do not agree the proposal made by the Respondents, the Applicant must be assumed in terms of Section 8 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 to have accepted the proposal of the Respondents ", it held.
Case Title : Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd vs Microtex Energy Pvt Ltd
Case Number : COMM. ARBITRATION PETITION (L.) NO. 33928 OF 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 130
The Bombay High Court on Tuesday observed that an arbitral award passed through ad hoc arbitration cannot be invalidated merely because one of the parties is an MSME supplier who could have approached the Facilitation Council under the MSMED Act.
Justice Sandeep V. Marne dismissed a petition filed by Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) challenging an arbitral award passed in favour of Microtex Energy Pvt. Ltd,an MSME.
“Therefore, if parties opt for ad hoc arbitration, the award is not rendered invalid merely because one of the parties to the dispute is a supplier capable of seeking reference under Section 18 of the MSMED Act," the court held.
Fundamental Evidence Principles Cannot Be Ignored In Arbitration: Bombay High Court
Case Title : Arenel (Private) Limited Vs. M/s. Aakash Packaging
Case Number : COMM. ARBITRATION APPEAL (L) NO.30982 OF 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 126
The Bombay High Court on 9 March held that while arbitral proceedings are not strictly bound by the technical provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, the fundamental principles governing the burden of proof and the admissibility of evidence cannot be ignored to uphold an arbitral award that is patently illegal.
The Bench observed:
“Section 102 of the Indian Evidence Act provides that the burden of proof in a suit or proceeding lies on that person, who would fail if no evidence at all, was given on either side. The strict rules of the Evidence Act may not be enforced in an arbitral proceeding but the fundamental rules of law and evidence cannot be ignored to affirm an Award which on the face of it is patently illegal.”
Case Title : Edelweiss Financial Services Ltd vs Percept Finserve Pvt Ltd & Ors
Case Number : COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION APPLICATION (L) NO.5187 OF 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 139
The Bombay High Court recently reiterated that when an arbitral award is set aside, the period between the commencement of the earlier arbitration and the date of the court's order is required to be excluded while computing limitation for initiating fresh arbitral proceedings.
A single bench of Justice Sandeep V. Marne held that “Thus, when Arbitral Award is set aside by the Court either under Section 34 or under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act, the period between commencement of arbitration and date of order of the Court is required to be excluded for the purpose of computation of limitation for commencement of fresh arbitral proceedings with respect to the dispute so submitted".
Case Title : Osterreichischer Lloyd Seereederei (Cyprus) Ltd. Versus Victore Ships Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 398 OF 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 129
The Bombay High Court on Tuesday held that courts can grant interim protective measures under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act to secure the amount awarded under a foreign arbitral award even after a petition seeking its recognition and enforcement has been filed.
Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan made the observation while hearing a petition filed by Osterreichischer Lloyd Seereederei (Cyprus) Ltd against Victore Ships Pvt Ltd seeking interlocutory protection to secure the awarded amount pending enforcement of a foreign arbitral award dated March 23, 2020.
Rejecting the respondent's objection to the maintainability of the petition, the court said the jurisdiction of a Section 9 court continues until the foreign award becomes a decree of an Indian court.
“It is after the stage at which the foreign award becomes a decree of an Indian Court that the words 'but before it is enforced in accordance with section 36' used in Section 9(1) of the Act would present any basis for the Section 9 Court to refrain from entertaining prayers for any protective measures, since at that stage execution proceedings would have commenced, without the need to file a new set of proceedings,” the court observed.
Telangana High Court
Case Title : Sagar Asia Private Limited v. Mr. V. Agastya Sagar & Ors
Case Number : Writ Petition No. 37432 of 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (TEL) 6
The Telangana High Court has recently held that its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution cannot be invoked to challenge an arbitral tribunal's rejection of a jurisdictional objection when the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 provides a specific post-award remedy.
Dismissing a writ petition filed by Sagar Asia Private Limited, a Division Bench of Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice Gadi Praveen Kumar held that the petitioner must await the arbitral award and pursue remedies under Sections 34 and 37 of the Act.
“The petitioner's choice of forum is entirely misplaced as a clear statutory remedy is available under section 16(6) of the Act. That stage has not yet been reached. There is no conceivable reason as to why the Writ Court would impede the momentum of the arbitral proceedings midway,” the court observed.
Examining the statutory framework under Sections 16, 34 and 37 of the Act, the High Court held that once a plea under Section 16 is rejected, the arbitral tribunal is required to continue the proceedings and render its award. Only thereafter can the aggrieved party challenge the award under Section 34. If that challenge fails, an appeal lies under Section 37(1)(c).Case Title : OWH SE i.L. v United Company RUSAL International PJSC & Ors.
Case Number : Execution Petition (Arbitration) No. 2 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (TEL) 7
The Telangana High Court has recently restrained AL Plus Holding LLC, a subsidiary of award-debtor United Company RUSAL International PJSC, from transferring its 26% shareholding in Pioneer Aluminium Industries Limited while hearing enforcement proceedings of foreign arbitral awards worth about Rs 2,840 crore obtained by OWH SE i.L.
A single bench of Justice T. Madhavi Devi directed that “this Court is inclined to direct the respondent No.2 not to transfer its shares in Pioneer Aluminum Industries Limited to the extent of 26% of total shares of the said company as stated by the petitioner in his affidavit till the next date of hearing.”
It observed that the direction was required “in order to see that the award is not defeated by any attempts to divert the funds by the arbitral award debtor.”
Jammu & Kashmir & Ladakh High Court
Case Title : Union of India v. M/s K.K. Enterprises Contractors
Case Number : AA No. 07/2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (JAM) 3
The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh has dismissed an appeal filed by the Union of India challenging an arbitral award that granted 12 percent post-award interest, holding that the statutory 18 percent rate under the unamended law applies only where the award is silent.
A Division Bench of Justice Rajnesh Oswal and Justice Rahul Bharti dismissed an appeal filed by the Union of India challenging and award including the grant of 12 percent future interest in favour of K.K. Enterprises Contractors.
The Court examined Section 31(7)(b) of the 1997 Act as it stood prior to amendment. The provision states that a sum directed to be paid by an arbitral award shall carry interest at 18 percent per annum from the date of the award until payment, unless the award otherwise directs. Since the arbitrator had expressly granted 12 percent interest, the statutory default of 18 percent did not apply.
The Court said, "The learned Arbitrator exercised his discretion to grant future interest at the rate of 12% per annum. We find no illegality in this determination.”
Case Title : The Highways Authority of India through its Project Director Bharat Bhushan vs Rano Devi & Ors.
Case Number : WP(C) No.82/2024
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (JAM) 6
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has held that an arbitral award determining compensation under the National Highways Act cannot be interfered with in a Section 37 appeal merely because another view on valuation is possible.
Dismissing two appeals filed by the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI), Justice Javed Iqbal Wani reiterated that Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 provides only a limited right of appeal.
The Court further clarified that the Appellate Court under Section 37 supra cannot re-appreciate the evidence, re-evaluate factual findings or substitute its own view merely because another view is possible and that the errorsof fact or erroneous appreciation of evidence by the Arbitrator would not constitute valid grounds for interference, unless such errors go to the root of the matter and fall within the narrow category of patent illegality or contravention of fundamental policy of Indian law"
Venue Of Arbitration Is Seat In Absence Of Contrary Indication: J&K&L High Court
Case Title : S.D.Bhat vs Hindustan Construction Company Ltd (HCC Ltd) & Anr., 2026
Case Number : Arb P No.21/2021
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (JAM) 5
The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladkah High Court has recently reiterated that where an arbitration clause designates a particular place as the “venue” of arbitration and there is no contrary indication, such place must be treated as the “seat” of arbitration, thereby conferring exclusive jurisdiction on courts at that location.
"It is, thus settled that whenever there is mention of place of arbitration in an arbitration clause as being the venue of arbitration proceedings, it would really mean the seat of arbitral proceedings. This is so because the expression “arbitration/ arbitral proceedings” does not refer to individual hearing but conveys that entire arbitration process including making of the award shall be conducted at the place referred to as venue‟, the court observed.
Case Title : H.P.Singh & Co. Vs Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : AA No.5/2018
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (JAM) 4
The Jammu & Kashmir& Ladkah High Court on 13 February 2026 held that once a contractor voluntarily executes a supplementary agreement rescinding the original contract and issues an unconditional “No Claim Certificate,” no arbitral dispute survives.
A Bench of Justice Sanjeev Kumar dismissed the petition filed by H.P. Singh & Co. under Section 11(6) of the J&K Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1997, seeking appointment of an independent arbitrator against the Union of India and Northern Railways. Since the petitioner had voluntarily executed the supplementary agreement rescinding the arbitration clause and subsequently issued a No Claim Certificate without protest, the dispute was deemed settled by accord and satisfaction.
J&K & Ladakh High Court Refers Contract Dispute To Arbitration, Leaves Limitation Issue To Tribunal
Case Title : Ace Consultants v. J&K Projects Construction Corporation Ltd. & Ors.
Case Number : Arb P No.14/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (JAM) 9
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has recently reiterated that while deciding petitions for appointment of an arbitrator, the court cannot undertake a detailed inquiry into limitation, and such issues must be decided by the arbitral tribunal.
The court was hearing four petitions filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, seeking appointment of an independent arbitrator to adjudicate disputes arising between Ace Consultants, a proprietorship firm, and J&K Projects Construction Corporation Limited, regarding unpaid contractual amounts under certain works.
Justice Sanjay Dhar observed, “This Court, while exercising its power under Section 11 (6) of the Act, cannot go into this issue and it is only the arbitral tribunal, who can go into all these issues during arbitral proceedings.”
Madras High Court
Case Title : M/s Angel One Limited v. S.X.J. Vasan
Case Number : Arb.O.P.(Com.Div.) No.417 of 2023
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 30
The Madras High Court has upheld an arbitral award directing Angel One Limited to pay Rs 48.77 lakh with interest to its client, holding that the squaring off of shares by the broker was illegal. The court found no ground to interfere with the award under the limited scope of a challenge to an arbitral decision. Justice N. Anand Venkatesh said the sole arbitrator's conclusion was based on a proper appreciation of evidence.
The court made clear that it could not re-examine the merits merely because another view was possible. "This finding of the sole Arbitrator to the effect that the squaring off done by the petitioner on 21.1.2016 was illegal is certainly a possible view on appreciation of evidence. Just because there is a possibility of taking a different view based on the evidence available on record, that cannot be a ground to interfere with the finding and the law on this issue is too well settled.", it said.
Madras High Court Sets Aside Arbitral Award After Railways Unilaterally Appointed Tribunal
Case Title : RPN Engineers Chennai Pvt. Ltd. v. The General Manager, Integral Coach Factory & Anr.
Case Number : Arbitration Original Petition (Com.Div.) No.503 of 2022 and Application No.4187 of 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 27 T
The Madras High Court has recently struck down an arbitral award in a dispute with the Integral Coach Factory after finding that the Railways unilaterally appointed the arbitral tribunal, even though the contractor had clearly objected to the process. Justice N. Anand Venkatesh held that the arbitral award stood “vitiated due to lack of jurisdiction” since the tribunal had been unilaterally constituted. Finding that the award had been passed without jurisdiction, the court set it aside, while leaving it open to the parties to seek the appointment of a fresh arbitral tribunal in accordance with law.
Bias of Even One Arbitrator Taints Entire Arbitral Award: Madras High Court
Case Title : M/s.Muthu Construction v. Union of India
Case Number : Arbitration O.P.(Com.Div.) No.603 of 2022
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 24
The Madras High Court has set aside an arbitral award, holding that the bias of even a single arbitrator is sufficient to vitiate the entire award, even where the decision is unanimous. Justice N. Anand Venkatesh said parties are entitled to an arbitral tribunal that is impartial in its entirety and not merely a neutral majority. Bias, the court held, violates Section 18 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which requires equal treatment of parties, and also goes against the fundamental policy of Indian law.
The court observed, “It is impossible to know whether or to what extent the participation of the biased member affected the tribunal's decision. It cannot be assumed that the presumed impartiality and independence of one of the co-arbitrators of the panel rendered it harmless. In other words, a party is entitled to an independent and impartial tribunal, which means that all the members of the tribunal must be impartial and without bias. In the absence of the same, the bias of even a single member will necessarily vitiate the award rendered by the Arbitral Tribunal.”
Madras High Court Upholds Arbitral Award Granting Relief To 93 Chennai Port Spillage Workers
Case Title: The Chairperson, Chennai Port Authority v. V. Manoharan & Ors.
Case Number: Arb O.P(COM.DIV.) No. 509 of 2023
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 18
The Madras High Court rejected a petition filed by the Chennai Port Authority, refusing to set aside an arbitral award that directed the port to reinstate spillage-handling workers and grant back wages, gratuity and other service benefits to 93 workers. A single bench of Justice N Anand Venkatesh held that the award did not suffer from any jurisdictional error or patent illegality and did not conflict with public policy. The court observed that the Port Trust, as a State instrumentality, is “is expected to act with a higher degree of fairness than ordinary employers”.
The court accepted the finding that the workers were under the “supervision and control” of the Port Authority and said the arbitrator had balanced the rights of workers who had served the port for decades.
The bench also recorded that the Port Authority had participated in the arbitration without raising any jurisdictional objection at the appropriate stage and could not later “turn around and question the very forum whose jurisdiction it had accepted.”
Case Title : M/s Annai Builders Real Estate Pvt Ltd v. G.B. Sarath Kumar
Case Number : Arb O.P (Com. Div.) No. 62 of 2021; EP SR No. 123007 of 2023
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 51
The Madras High Court on 17 February set aside a Rs. 1.10 crore arbitral award passed against Annai Builders Real Estate Pvt. Ltd., holding that the arbitrator's findings were unintelligible as two disputed running bills were allowed without examining objections of duplicate claims and excess payment, and by ignoring a detailed 242-page expert report assessing actual construction progress.
A Single Bench of Justice N. Anand Venkatesh held that the award suffered from perversity and patent illegality and set it aside in entirety. The Court observed:
“on an overall reading of the award passed by the Sole Arbitrator, this Court finds that the findings rendered for the main issues are unintelligible and it was given in complete disregard to the evidence available on record and the findings are also mutually contradictory. Hence, this Court is inclined to interfere with the entire award on the ground of perversity and patent illegality”.
Case Title : Volleyball Federation of India v. Baseline Ventures (India) Pvt. Ltd
Case Number : Arb.O.P. (Com.Div.) No. 175 of 2021
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 50
The Madras High Court refused to interfere with an arbitral award directing the Volleyball Federation of India to pay Rs.4 crore as loss of profits to Baseline Ventures, the former promoter of the Pro Volleyball League, holding that the federation's termination of the 2018 agreement was unjustified.
Justice N. Anand Venkatesh held that the award dated November 21, 2020 “does not suffer from any perversity or patent illegality warranting the interference of this Court."
Having found the termination unlawful, the arbitrator had awarded Rs.4 crore towards loss of profits. The Court endorsed the approach adopted for quantifying damages, reiterating that arbitrators are permitted “to employ an honest guesswork and a rough and ready method for quantifying the damages.
Case Title : Sivashankar & Co. vs The Divisional Railway Manager
Case Number : Arb.OP (Com.Div).No.630 of 2022
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 48
Holding that a contract that has already expired cannot thereafter be terminated, the Madras High Court has partly set aside an arbitral award that upheld Southern Railway's termination of a works contract and the consequent forfeiture of deposits.
“The very process of termination presupposes that there is a subsisting contract. If there is no subsisting contract, there is nothing to be terminated thereafter,” Justice N. Anand Venkatesh observed while partly allowing a petition under Section 34 of the arbitration and Conciliation Act filed by Sivashankar & Co.
“The petitioner could not have challenged the termination of contract under Section 9 of the Act since if the petitioner has sought for injuncting the respondent from terminating, it would have been rejected under Section 14 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 since it is capable of being compensated in terms of money,” the court further observed.
Case Title : B.M. Insulation Private Limited v. Vardeep Petro Chemical Private Limited & M/s Saffe Systems v. BGR Energy Systems Limited
Case Number : Arb. Appln. No. 374 of 2025 & Arb. Appln. No. 628 of 2025,
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 41
The Madras High Court has held that interim protection under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, remains available even after an arbitral award is passed and execution proceedings are filed, until the award is fully satisfied. “The words 'before it is enforced' means 'until the complete satisfaction of the award',” a full bench said, rejecting the view that such relief ends once the award becomes enforceable.
A full bench of the High Court said the word 'enforced' in Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act means until the award is fully satisfied, not merely enforceable.
“When Section 9 contemplates a Post-Award protection, the purpose of such interim protection being to secure the property or amount for the benefit of the party which seeks enforcement of the award, no further interpretation can be made which will cripple such interim protection intended to be given to the award holder by the statute.,” the bench held.
Madras High Court Sets Aside ₹7.77-Crore Award Against New India Assurance
Case Title : The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Rajkumar Impex Private Ltd.
Case Number : Arb.O.P.(Com.Div.) No. 223 of 2022
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 40
The Madras High Court has recently set aside a Rs 7.77-crore arbitral award passed against New India Assurance Company Limited, holding that the arbitral tribunal failed to properly examine whether the claimant had the right to maintain the insurance claim after transferring its entire business. Allowing the insurer's challenge, Justice N. Anand Venkatesh held that the tribunal ignored a threshold issue going to the root of the dispute and returned findings that were “bereft of any materials” and based on “mere surmises and conjectures”. Justice Venkatesh held that the tribunal failed to appreciate the legal effect of the Business Transfer Agreement. Treating the transaction as a slump sale, the court observed, “Once it is a slump sale, every other account receivable will stand transferred to the purchaser. The insurance policy amount that is receivable from the petitioner will also obviously stand transferred to the new entity.”
Case Title : MIOT Hospitals Private Limited v. Dr. Balaraman Palaniappan
Case Number : Arb.O.P.(Com.Div.) No.708 of 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 55
Holding that hospitals cannot restrain doctors from practicing their profession after termination of service, the Madras High Court has ruled that post-contract non-compete and non-solicitation clauses in doctor agreements are opposed to public policy and void under the Indian Contract Act. The court said such clauses are unlawful, unenforceable, and void ab initio.
Dismissing a petition filed by MIOT Hospitals Private Limited seeking appointment of a sole arbitrator against cardiothoracic surgeon Dr. Balaraman Palaniappan, Justice N. Anand Venkatesh imposed costs of Rs1 lakh on the hospital, finding that there was no surviving arbitrable dispute.
“An agreement entered into by a doctor with a hospital, which contains a non solicitation and or non compete clause, is certainly opposed to public policy and such an agreement is squarely hit by Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. Consequently, it must be held to be unlawful, unenforceable and void ab initio to that extent,” the Court held.
Madras High Court Attaches ₹154.63 Crore SEPC Receivables, Appoints PwC To Audit Financial Position
Case Title : GPE(INDIA) Ltd and Ors v. Twarit Consultancy Services Private Ltd and Ors
Case Number : EP Nos.7 of 2024, 91&92 of 2023, 15&16 of 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 54
The Madras High Court recently ordered interim attachment of Rs. 154.63 crore from the trade receivables of SEPC Limited, formerly known as Shriram EPC Limited, and appointed an independent auditor to examine its financial position, observing that it “cannot sit like a lame duck” while awaiting submissions from banks claiming charge over the company's assets.
Justice N. Anand Venkatesh passed the order in execution petitions filed by GPE (India) Ltd. seeking enforcement of a foreign arbitral award dated January 7, 2021, passed by the Singapore International Arbitration Centre.
“In the absence of any other security available and considering the huge amount that is due and payable to the award holder, this order of interim attachment is warranted,” the judge held.
Arbitrator Appointed By Agreed Institution Not Per Se Unilateral: Madras High Court
Case Title : Thomas Varghese v. M/s Sundaram Finance Limited & Anr
Case Number : Arb.OP (Com.Div.) No.598 of 2023
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 57
Drawing a clear distinction between unilateral appointments and institutional nominations, the Madras High Court has held that an arbitrator appointed by an arbitral institution agreed upon by the parties cannot automatically be treated as a unilateral appointee, even if one side initiates the process.
“The appointment of Arbitral Tribunal by an institution that is agreed upon between the parties per se cannot be dealt with in the same manner in which the Court deals with an unilateral appointment of an Arbitrator,” Justice N. Anand Venkatesh observed while upholding an arbitral award in favour of Sundaram Finance Limited.
At the same time, the court cautioned that financial institutions cannot bypass settled law by creating so-called arbitral bodies as a ruse. Referring to developments after the Supreme Court's rulings on unilateral appointments, the judge noted that some entities have formed associations and described them as arbitral institutions in order to “get over the judgment of the Apex Court.” Courts, he said, must test the credibility and integrity of such institutions whenever objections are raised.
Works Contract Payment Dispute Can Proceed In MSME Arbitration: Madras High Court
Case Title : Chennai Petroleum Corporation Limited v. Micro and Small Enterprises
Case Number : CRP No. 3446 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 60
The Madras High Court has refused to interfere with an order of the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council rejecting a Section 16 jurisdictional objection, holding that a payment claim arising from services under a civil works contract falls within the scope of the MSMED Act and can be adjudicated in arbitration before the Council.
Justice S. Sounthar observed that while courts ordinarily do not intervene when an Arbitral Tribunal rejects a jurisdictional objection, this case required scrutiny as Chennai Petroleum Corporation Limited had questioned the very applicability of the MSME law itself. The Court noted:
“In normal course, this Court would not have entertained the Civil Revision Petition and relegated the parties to workout the remedy under Section 34 of Arbitration Act, in view of Section 16(6) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The very applicability of MSMED Act for the claim made by the second respondent is questioned… and the same is going to the root of the matter.”
Case Title : X-Press Container Lines (UK) Ltd vs Board of Trustees of Port of Chennai
Case Number : OSA (CAD) 39 OF 2021
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 77
The Madras High Court recently restored an arbitral award directing the Board of Trustees of the Port of Chennai to refund Rs.1,21,91,869 to X-Press Container Lines (UK) Ltd. in a dispute arising out of a berth reservation agreement and recovery of berth hire charges and penal levy, holding that the claim was within limitation in view of repeated acknowledgments of liability by the Port authorities. A Division Bench comprising Justices C.V. Karthikeyan and K. Kumaresh Babu allowed an appeal filed by X-Press Container Lines challenging an order dated September 17, 2020 that had set aside the arbitral award dated January 17, 2009. “In view of all these reasons, we set aside the order of the learned Single Judge and restore the award of the Arbitral Tribunal on the same terms granted by the Tribunal. The judgment of the learned Single Judge in O.P.No.511 of 2009 dated 17.09.2020 is set aside.”, the bench observed.
Case Title : O. Muthu v. P. Ashok & Ors.
Case Number : OSA Nos. 311 & 312 of 2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 80
Calling a Rs 24-crore arbitral award a “fraud” and “not worth the paper it had been written in”, the Madras High Court has upheld a 2019 order setting aside the award in a land dispute, holding that the Memorandum of Understanding on which the claim was based was an unlawful agreement opposed to public policy. Holding that the Memorandum of Understanding was unlawful as it contemplated securing favourable government and court orders through a third party without the property owners being parties to the agreement, the bench observed, “The Memorandum of Understanding which provided for obtaining favourable orders from the Government and engaging counsels to get favourable orders from the Court without the owners of the property being party to the said agreement is wholly an unlawful agreement. It was an exercise opposed to public policy, covenant in the said agreement is void ab initio".
Case Title : M/s Sree Agencies v. The Chief Law Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. & Ors.
Case Number : O.P. No. 482 of 2017
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 81
The Madras High Court has reiterated that courts can examine the validity of an arbitrator's appointment even if the issue was not specifically pleaded in a challenge under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, where the defect goes to the root of the arbitral tribunal's jurisdiction. Setting aside a 2016 arbitral award, the Single Bench of Justice N. Anand Venkatesh observed that “The Apex Court has held in more than one judgment that where the question raised goes to the root of the matter touching upon the very jurisdiction of the arbitral Tribunal and the same can be ascertained on the face of the award passed by the Tribunal, the Court can always go into the issue of jurisdiction even if no specific ground has been raised in the petition filed under Section 34 of the Act.”
Case Title : ADRPlexus Medical Services Pvt Ltd v Dr Vivekandan K S
Case Number : Arb Appeal No 29 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 88
The Madras High Court has dismissed an appeal challenging an arbitrator's refusal to send an iPad marked as evidence for expert analysis, holding that the appeal filed by ADRPlexus Medical Services Pvt Ltd was not maintainable under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, particularly where the request was made after completion of the claimant's evidence. A Division Bench of Justice P. Velmurugan and Justice K. Govindarajan Thilakavadi held that ADRPlexus Medical Services Pvt Ltd had failed to justify the need for expert examination and had moved the application only after the chief-examination of its witness before the arbitral tribunal. “During the adjudication proceedings, after completion of chief examination of the appellant's witness/CW1, the appellant thought it fit to file the instant application as an after-thought, when the appellant did not choose to log in the iPad or call upon the respondent to furnish the login details earlier. In spite of sufficient opportunities granted to the appellant to exhibit the contents of the iPad, for the reasons best known to the appellant, the appellant has not utilised the same, and therefore, the sole Arbitrator has rightly dismissed the application,” the Court observed.
Arbitral Tribunal Cannot Direct Renewal Of Determinable Contract: Madras High Court
Case Title : Southern Railway vs. Mrs.G. Bharathi
Case Number : O.SA.No.49 of 2021
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 83
The Madras High Court has set aside an arbitral award and a subsequent order of a single judge, ruling that an arbitral tribunal cannot direct continuation or renewal of a determinable contract, as such relief is barred under Section 14(d) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. A Division Bench of Justice P. Velmurugan and Justice K. Govindarajan Thilakavadi held that once a contract is determinable in nature, an arbitral tribunal cannot compel its continuation or renewal. “Section 14(d) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (formerly Section 14(1)(c) prior to the 2018 amendment) clearly provides that contracts which are in their nature determinable cannot be specifically enforced. Once it is held that the contract between the parties is determinable in nature, the arbitral tribunal could not have granted a direction compelling renewal of the licence,” the Court observed.
Interim Relief Under Arbitration Act Cannot Supplant Execution Proceedings: Madras High Court
Case Title : C.J.Charles Rajkumar Versus Mrs.Rahamathunnisa (died) W/O A.Isfahai
Case Number : O.A.No.1188 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 63
The Madras High Court recently observed that a petition seeking interim relief under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act cannot be used as a substitute for execution proceedings under the Civil Procedure Code.
“An application under Section 9 can supplement but cannot supplant the process of execution contemplated through Order XXI of the Code,” Justice N. Anand Venkatesh said.
The court explained that although a Section 9 petition may remain maintainable until an arbitral award is fully satisfied, that does not mean the court must entertain such a petition in every case. The power to grant interim measures under the provision is discretionary, particularly where execution proceedings concerning the same award are already pending before the executing court.
Case Title : Lss Ocean Transport Dmcc Versus K.I. (International) Limited
Case Number : O.S.A (CAD) No. 15 of 2024 and CMP No.3586 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 67
The Madras High Court has allowed enforcement of a foreign arbitral award against a group company after noting that it had voluntarily issued a cheque as security for the disputed demurrage claim arising from a shipping contract.
A division bench of Justice C.V. Karthikeyan and Justice K. Kumaresh Babu observed that by issuing the cheque as security for the award amount, the company had effectively undertaken to satisfy the award if the charterer failed to do so. It therefore could not avoid liability by claiming that it was not a signatory to the arbitration agreement.
“They had knowledge that they would be made a party in an application seeking enforcement of the award. Having issued the cheque with such knowledge, they cannot now put forth a plea that, since they were not parties to the agreement or party to the arbitral proceedings, they cannot be made liable jointly and severally with the 1st respondent for the award passed by the arbitral tribunal. If permitted this would indirectly indicate encouragement of an act of deception and underlying fraud", it observed.
Case Title : The Project Director / Member Secretary, Tamil Nadu State AIDS Control Society v. The State Human Rights Commission, Tamil Nadu & Dr. Lucas Babu
Case Number : W.P. No. 21462 of 2021
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 74
The Madras High Court has recently set aside a recommendation of the Tamil Nadu State Human Rights Commission directing payment of ₹1 lakh compensation in a dispute arising out of a funding agreement between the Tamil Nadu State AIDS Control Society (TANSACS) and an NGO, holding that the matter was governed by a contractual dispute-resolution clause providing for grievance redressal and arbitration.
The order was passed by a Division Bench of Justice Dr. G. Jayachandran and Justice Shamim Ahmed in a writ petition filed by TANSACS challenging the Commission's order dated 4 May 2021.
“We find that the State Human Rights Commission ought not to have entertained the complaint in view of the terms of the agreement as the facts purely centers around the enforcement of the contractual obligations between the parties. Despite the clear terms of the agreement, the State Human Rights Commission exceeded its powers by conducting enquiry and had issued recommendations extracted above, which is totally beyond the jurisdiction of State Human Rights Commission. Hence, the said recommendations are liable to be quashed.”
Case Title : J. Nithyanandham v. M.V.S. Gramany and Sons & Ors.
Case Number : A No. 4679 of 2025 in C.S. (Comm. Div.) No. 154 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 75
The Madras High Court has refused to refer a trademark infringement and passing-off dispute over the snuff brand “J.S. Madras Snuff” to arbitration, holding that the arbitration clause in a partnership deed covering disputes between partners cannot bind a non-signatory merely because the alleged infringer is the partner's son.
Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy examined Clause 13 of the partnership deed and observed,
“The language of such clause makes it clear that it pertains to disputes or differences arising between the parties to the partnership deed. It is implicit that it should be a dispute pertaining to a matter dealt with at least broadly in the partnership deed. The partnership deed does not discuss the intellectual property of the partnership firm in general and clearly does not refer specifically to the marks forming the subject of this suit.”
Punjab & Haryana High Court
Punjab and Haryana High Court Sets Aside ₹5.18 Crore Arbitral Award Against Aditya Birla Fashion
Case Title : Aditya Birla Fashion and Retail Limited v. Dayanand
Case Number : FAO-CARB No. 39 of 2025 (O&M)
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (PNH) 9
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has set aside a Rs. 5.18 crore arbitral award passed in favour of landlord Dayanand and against Aditya Birla Fashion and Retail Limited in a dispute arising from a 2018 warehouse fire, holding that the award was contrary to the express terms of the lease deed and suffered from patent illegality.
“By awarding sum to compensate the losses arising from under valuation of the property, for the purposes of insurance, the Arbitrator has virtually re-written the contract, which is not permissible. This aspect has been completely omitted from consideration by the Arbitrator even though the appellant had specifically asserted that securing the leased-out premise against the incident of fire by way of insurance was the exclusive obligation of the claimant.” a Division Bench of Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Rohit Kapoor held.
The bench further noted that the damages awarded were not supported by proof of actual expenditure beyond what was assessed by the insurer. Reliance on valuation material and a Chartered Accountant's certificate was insufficient.
Case Title : Aggarwal Sons v. Union of India and Others
Case Number : CR-7890-2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (PNH) 8
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has set aside a condition imposed by an executing court that required an award-holder to furnish a bank guarantee to obtain release of an arbitral award amount. The court held that no such condition can be imposed by the executing court in the absence of any interim stay. A bench of Justice Jasgurpreet Singh Puri held that once objections to an arbitral award are dismissed and no interim order is granted in appeal, the executing court is bound to execute the award in full.
“In the absence of any interim order in appeal, the learned Executing Court is required to execute the decree without imposing any such onerous condition,” the Court observed.
Case Title : Delhivery Limited v. Smartpaddle Technology Private Limited
Case Number : ARB-364-2025 (O&M)
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (PNH) 15
The Punjab and Haryana High Court on 9 March, held that digitally executed agreements are valid even in the absence of physical signatures where the parties have acted upon them and do not dispute their existence. A Single Bench of Justice Jasgurpreet Singh Puri appointed Justice B.S. Walia, former Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, as the sole arbitrator to adjudicate disputes between Delhivery Limited and Smartpaddle Technology Private Limited. The Bench observed: “It is not necessary that the agreement has to be physically signed and the same can always be signed digitally by both the parties and in the present case, the agreement was rather given effect to and the conduct of the parties would show that the agreement was acted upon.”
Case Title : Sunil Garg v. Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board
Case Number : ARB-35-2026 (O&M)
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (PNH) 13
The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently dismissed an arbitration petition seeking appointment of an arbitrator while also seeking termination of the mandate of a sole arbitrator already conducting the proceedings.
A Single Bench of Justice Jasgurpreet Singh Puri imposed costs of Rs 25,000 on the petitioner and observed,
“It is very surprising as to how an application under Section 11 of the Act would be maintainable before this Court and a specific query in this regard was put to the learned counsel for the applicant, to which he could not answer. Similarly, it is also very surprising as to how an application under Sections 14 and 15 of the Act seeking termination of the mandate of an Arbitrator would be maintainable before this Court and that too read with Section 11 of the Act because such an application, if any, has to be filed before the learned Court as defined under Section 2(1)(e) of the Act and therefore, the applicant cannot seek substitution of the Arbitrator from this Court which is not the Court as defined under Section 2(1)(e) of the Act.”
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Status Quo Ante Means Restoration, Can't Be Ordered Lightly: Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case Title: The Visakhapatnam Port Authority v. M/s. Vishwanadh Avenues (India) Private Limited, rep. by its Managing Director, Boddeti Narendra Kumar.
Case Number : COMCA Nos.29 & 30 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (APH) 10
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has recently set aside an ad interim order passed during arbitration proceedings that directed restoration of possession of leased premises, holding that such relief amounts to a mandatory injunction and cannot be granted lightly. A Division Bench of Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Maheswara Rao Kuncheam said courts must record clear and justifiable reasons before directing restoration of an earlier state of affairs. "Such orders of status quo ante‟ are not to be passed lightly and certainly not for no reasons assigned in the order.
The order must contain justifiable reasons for an ad-interim order in the nature of mandatory injunction", it said. The court rejected attempts to defend the order in question by supplying reasons during the appeal, including arguments relating to the legality of taking possession.
An order, it said, must stand or fall on the reasons recorded in it and cannot be supplemented later. The bench said it would not get into disputed questions of fact, including whether the lease terms were breached or whether possession was taken lawfully, as those issues require factual examination and are already pending before the Commercial Court. Since the impugned order recorded no reasons and did not even contain a prima facie finding to justify restoration, the High Court set aside the ad interim order.
Case Title : M/s. Sunrise & Engineering Industries vs. Hindustan Shipyard Limited & Anr. (and connected matters)
Case Number : C.M.A. No. 234 of 2025 & connected matters
Citation: 2026 LLBiz (APH) 7
The High Court of Andhra Pradesh recently set aside a Trial Court's order that had earlier quashed thirteen arbitral awards against Hindustan Shipyard Limited (HSL) and its subcontractors. The Division Bench comprising of Justices R. Raghunandan Rao and T.C.D. Sekhar, upholding the arbitral awards, stated that an arbitrator has the jurisdiction to modulate liquidated damages if they are found to be exorbitant or if the delay is attributable to both parties, and noted that “the question of application of the clause for liquidated damages, without modification, would not arise”.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court noted that liquidated damages cannot be imposed mechanically or in full once loss is quantifiable and delay is not solely attributable to the contractor. The Bench observed that where the employer admits that losses are already quantified, or where delay is shared between both parties, the arbitrator is empowered to reduce or modify the damages to ensure reasonable compensation. Conclusively, the Court held that “the learned Arbitrator cannot be termed to have exceeded his jurisdiction as such modification is permissible”.
Case Title: Zion Shipping Ltd v. Sarala Foods Pvt Ltd & Ors
Case Number: International Commercial Arbitration Appeal No. 2/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(APH) 5
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has said that a claim for demurrage, which is essentially a charge demanded for delay in loading or unloading a ship, cannot be treated as an actual money debt until an arbitral tribunal finally decides who is at fault. Because of this, the court held that such a claim cannot be secured by attaching goods under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act while arbitration is still pending.
The bench said, “It is pertinent to note that the demurrage here is liquidated damages, and liability is being contested before the arbitrator. As no pecuniary obligation arises until adjudication is complete, the claim is a mere right to sue for damages, which cannot by itself justify securing the amount through attachment because Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of the CPC cannot be used to convert an unsecured claim for damages into a secured debt. ”
Case Title : JPR Projects Versus Axis Bank
Case Number : COMMERCIAL COURT APPEAL No. 21of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(APH) 22
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has recently declined to interfere with an order granting limited interim relief against the freezing of a partnership firm's bank account, observing that the protection had already lapsed after the firm failed to initiate arbitral proceedings within 90 days. A division bench of Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Maheswara Rao Kuncheamobserved that the interim relief granted by the Special Judge for Trial and Disposal of Commercial Disputes at Visakhapatnam was expressly limited to a period of 90 days, and the appellants had invoked arbitration only after that period had expired. “From the admitted facts on record it is evident that within a period of 90 days the arbitral proceedings were not commenced in terms of Sub-section (2) of Section 9 of the Act 1996. Notice under Section 21, sent to the respondents, is dated 07.11.2025 which is after the expiry of the period of 90 days from the date of the impugned Order.”
Case Title : Government of Andhra Pradesh v. M/s SCLCR 18G Joint Venture & Ors.
Case Number : CMA No.1141 of 2018; CRP No.6787 of 2018
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(APH) 24
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has recently dismissed an appeal challenging a Rs 199.96-crore arbitral award arising out of the Pulichintala Dam project dispute after the state failed to correct the description of the party from “Government of Andhra Pradesh” to “State of Andhra Pradesh” despite being given an opportunity to do so.
A Division Bench of Justice R. Raghunandan Rao and Justice T.C.D. Sekhar, in a judgment dated March 6, 2026, held that under Article 300 of the Constitution and Section 79 of the Civil Procedure Code, a State government must sue or be sued in the name of the “State of Andhra Pradesh”.
“This Article, in the light of the above judgments, would have to be understood to mean that "the Government of Andhra Pradesh" while being sued or suing, should be described as the "State of Andhra Pradesh". Put another way, the party to the litigation is actually the Government of Andhra Pradesh but the said Government of State is to be described as the State of Andhra Pradesh. Any technical defect, of not naming the appropriate party, in a case where an employee of the State is arrayed as a party instead of the State, can be corrected at the primary level and for such matters can be remanded to the primary level", it said.
Gauhati High Court
Case Title : Dhanjit Sarma v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : WP(C) 661/2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(GAU) 7
The Gauhati High Court has recently allowed a writ petition against ESIC authorities over non-payment of dues under a government procurement contract, despite the existence of an arbitration clause, after finding the state authority's conduct arbitrary.
The court observed, "In such facts and circumstances, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the refusal of the respondent No.3 to make payments is an arbitrary and unreasonable attempt, violating the protection guaranteed by Article 14 of the Constitution of India.There is no impediment to adjudicate the grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition only because of a clause in the General Terms and Condition of the GeM which requires referral of disputes arising out of the contract to arbitration. This Court has noticed that there is no clause in the contract or the GTC which allows withholding of payments beyond 10(ten) days after issuing the CRAC. Therefore, the respondent No.3 remains liable to release the contracted amount to the petitioner forthwith”
Chhattisgarh High Court
Case Title : State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. v. Gilcon Project Service Ltd. JV Scapes Associates
Case Number : ARBA Nos. 36, 37, 39, 40, 41 & 42 of 2020
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (CHH) 7
The Chhattisgarh High Court on 25 March dismissed the State of Chhattisgarh's appeals and upheld the Commercial Court's order partly setting aside the arbitral award while granting limited relief to Gilcon Project Service Ltd. JV Scapes Associates. A Bench of Justice Rajani Dubey and Justice Radhakishan Agrawal reiterated that courts exercising jurisdiction under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 cannot reassess evidence or substitute the arbitrator's findings unless the award suffers from patent illegality or violates public policy. The Court observed: “The learned Commercial Court minutely appreciated all grounds of application filed by the State and Gilcon Project and rightly passed the order and rightly rejected the applications of the State sans merit and rightly allowed the claim No.1 of the Gilcon Project, which is in respect of admitted amount withheld by the State. Thus, we do not find any illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the learned Commercial Court”.
Chhattisgarh High Court Refuses To Condone 110-Day Delay In Arbitration Appeal Against PwC
Case Title : Chhattisgarh State Agriculture Marketing Board versus Price Water House Coopers Pvt. Ltd
Case Number : ARBA No. 8 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (CHH) 6
The Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed an arbitration appeal filed by the Chhattisgarh State Agriculture Marketing Board against Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd., holding that the Board failed to justify a delay of 110 days in filing the appeal within the time limit prescribed under the Commercial Courts Act. A division bench of Justices Rajani Dubey and Radhakishan Agrawal held that no sufficient cause was shown to justify the delay beyond the prescribed limitation period under the Commercial Courts Act. “No satisfactory or reasonable explanation has been furnished for such delay, and the grounds stated do not constitute “sufficient cause.” The cumulative delay of 110 days, without sufficient cause, falls far outside the permissible bounds of delay under The Commercial Courts Act, 2015. Therefore, the application for condonation of delay is without any merit.”, the court observed.
Himachal Pradesh High Court
Deposit Of Arbitral Award Amount In Court Stops Post-Award Interest: Himachal Pradesh High Court
Case Title : Himachal Pradesh Power Corporation Ltd. v. Arvind Kumar Bansal
Case Number : CMPMO No. 262 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (HP) 8
The Himachal Pradesh High Court on 5 March held that deposit of the entire arbitral award amount in the court registry amounts to payment to the decree-holder, and liability to pay post-award interest ceases from the date of deposit. A Bench of Justice Romesh Verma set aside an execution order against the Himachal Pradesh Power Corporation Ltd. (HPPCL) in its dispute with Arvind Kumar Bansal. He held: “the deposit of award amount in the Court amounts to payment to the credit of the decree holder. Therefore, once the entire awarded amount along with interest was deposited before this Court on 10.01.2019, therefore, liability of past award interest from 10.01.2019 ceased. The executing Court has erred by holding that no notice was given to the Decree Holder as per mandate of Order 21 Sub Rule (2) of the CPC.”
Himachal Pradesh High Court Stays Further Arbitration Over Construction Project At IIT Mandi
Case Title : Indian Institute of Technology Mandi (Kamand) v. Central Public Works Department (CPWD) & Anr.
Case Number : LPA No. 121 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (HP) 9
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that further proceedings in an ongoing arbitration concerning a construction project involving the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Mandi and the Central Public Works Department (CPWD) shall remain stayed while it examines IIT Mandi's plea to be impleaded in the dispute arising from an arbitral award of Rs 3,79,52,929. The matter was heard on March 16, 2026, by a Division Bench of Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Justice Bipin C. Negi. Taking note of the submissions, the High Court issued notice to the Central Public Works Department, whose counsel accepted notice, and directed issuance of notice to the other respondent. In the meantime, the Court directed that further proceedings before the learned Arbitrator shall remain stayed. The matter has been listed for further hearing on May 4, 2026.
Meghalaya High Court
Meghalaya High Court Upholds BSCPL's 5-Year Blacklisting For Alleged Corruption In NH-44E Project
Case Title : BSCPL Infrastructure Ltd vs Public Works Department (Roads)
Case Number : WA No.3/2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (MEG) 1
The Meghalaya High Court has recently upheld the five-year blacklisting of BSCPL Infrastructure Ltd by the State Public Works Department (Roads) for engaging in corrupt practices during execution of a National Highway project.
The court held that the department was justified in acting on ledger entries showing expenditure on liquor, electronic items, hotel bills and donations for government officials during execution of a National Highway project.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice W. Diengdoh dismissed the company's writ appeal. The Bench affirmed the order dated December 3, 2024 debarring the joint venture from participating in future PWD tenders. It also upheld the Single Judge's judgment dated December 17, 2025 dismissing the writ petition. A Division Bench of Chief Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice W. Diengdoh dismissed the company's writ appeal. The Bench affirmed the order dated December 3, 2024 debarring the joint venture from participating in future PWD tenders. It also upheld the Single Judge's judgment dated December 17, 2025 dismissing the writ petition.
“We find that no interference is warranted either in the order dated 3rd December, 2024, blacklisting the appellant-JV or in the order impugned dated 17th December, 2025, passed by the learned Single Judge in WP (C) No.24 of 2025,” the court observed.
Case Title : State of Meghalaya v. Mayven T. Marbaniang & Anr
Case Number : Cont.Cas (C) No. 4 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (MEG) 2
The Meghalaya High Court has held a contempt petition arising from alleged disobedience of arbitral tribunal directions to be maintainable, rejecting an objection that no proper reference had been made by the tribunal and holding that the process of reference stood completed in the facts of the case. The Division Bench of Justice W. Diengdoh and Justice B. Bhattacharjee held that the tribunal's order directing that the matter be placed before the Chief Justice, followed by orders placing the case before the present bench, was sufficient to treat the reference as completed and that the petition could also be maintained at the instance of the aggrieved party under Rule 9 of the Contempt of Courts (High Court of Meghalaya) Rules, 2013.
Gujarat High Court
Case Title : Darshana Bhupendra Parekh vs TJSB Sahakari Bank Ltd
Case Number : R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 479 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (GUJ) 26
The Gujarat High Court recently observed that a party challenging an arbitral award cannot seek to overcome limitation by claiming that it came to know of the award during execution proceedings, if its Section 34 application does not contain a clear and categorical plea that the signed copy of the award had never been delivered to it as required under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. A division bench of Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice D.N. Ray made the observation while dismissing an appeal filed under Section 37 of the Act against an order rejecting a challenge to an arbitral award as time-barred. “In absence of any categorical statement made by the applicant about the non-delivery or non-receipt of the arbitral award, the contention based on the affixation of process in execution case is neither here nor there,” the court observed.
Allahabad High Court
Case Title: Genebio Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. through Director, Arun Kumar Srivastava Versus Paradigm Enterprises through Director Ritika Pandey and others
Case Number : Matters227 No. - 3886 of 2024
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (ALL) 10
The Allahabad High Court has recently reiterated that a challenge to an arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act does not become not maintainable merely because it is not accompanied by a separate application seeking condonation of delay. The court said what matters is whether the party has, in the petition itself, set out reasons for the delay or sought the benefit of limitation law, and whether the court has applied its mind to those pleadings. Justice Jaspreet Singh, however, relying on earlier precedents, made it clear that courts cannot mechanically excuse delay simply because a petition is filed within the additional 30-day window allowed under the law.
“It is not merely because the application under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 was not accompanied by a separate application seeking condonation of delay, per se would make the application not maintainable without considering as to whether in the pleading any ground was set out for condonation of delay or for grant of benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act or any prayer was made to the aforesaid effect or not,” the court said.
Case Title: Suryadev Pathak Versus Union of India and 4 others
Case Number: Writ C No. - 28215 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz (ALL) 3
The Allahabad High Court has held that it lacks jurisdiction to extend the mandate of an arbitrator under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, on the ground that it does not exercise ordinary original civil jurisdiction and therefore does not fall within the definition of “Court” under Section 2(1)(e)(i) of the Act. Consequently, the High Court ruled that it cannot entertain writ petitions seeking time-bound or expeditious disposal of arbitral proceedings when a specific statutory remedy lies before the competent civil court.
The bench of Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Kunal Ravi Singh held “The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad does not exercise ordinary original civil jurisdiction and therefore does not fall within the definition of "Court" under Section 2(1)(e)(i) of the Arbitration Act, 1996. Consequently, this Court cannot exercise jurisdiction under Section 29A of the Arbitration Act, 1996.”
Case Title : Shri Pramhans Enterprises v. M/s Varanasi Aurangabad NH-2 Tollway Private Limited
Case Number : Arbitration and Conciliation Application U/S 11(4) No. 129 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (ALL) 24
The Allahabad High Court has recently reiterated that while disputes relating to sovereign functions such as imposition or levy of tax are non-arbitrable, but disputes arising out of contractual obligations between parties, even if they involve issues of tax reimbursement or GST compliance, remain arbitrable. A bench of Justice Vikas Budhwar relying on rulings in Vidya Drolia vs. Durga Trading Corporation and other precedents, observed, "From the law laid down in the aforesaid decisions,It is evident that disputes relating to sovereign functions such as imposition or levy of tax are non-arbitrable. However, disputes arising out of contractual obligations between parties, even if they involve issues of tax reimbursement or compliance, do not fall within the category of non-arbitrable disputes".
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Case Title: Shyam Indus Power Solution Private Ltd. v. Madhya Pradesh Madhya Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Co. Ltd.
Case Number: Misc. Petition No. 3672 Of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (MP) 6
The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that courts enforcing arbitration awards cannot add interest on capital expenditure by default when the arbitral award is silent and there is no delay in payment. It also ruled that courts enforcing arbitration awards cannot redo the electricity pricing formula used to calculate payments to power distributors once an arbitral award has become final.
During execution proceedings, Shyam Indus asked the court to recalculate IRF and grant post-award interest on CAPEX. The High Court rejected both. On interest, the court said post-award interest is meant to ensure prompt payment and cannot be granted where there is no delay. “There was no delay on the part of the MPMKVVCL/Judgment Debtor to make a payment of the CAPEX amount; hence, the question of grant of interest on this amount does not arise,” the court said.
Parties Must Exhaust Contractual Dispute Resolution Before Court Appoints Arbitrator: MP High Court
Case Title: Anshul Chawla v. Taskis India Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number: AC-105-2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (MP) 5
The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that a court cannot appoint an arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 unless the party seeking such appointment has first exhausted the dispute resolution mechanism contractually agreed upon between the parties. A Bench of Justice Pavan Kumar Dwivedi dismissed three applications filed by former employees of Taskis India Private Limited, seeking appointment of an arbitrator, holding that the applicants were bound by the arbitration procedure stipulated in their employment agreements.
The Court observed, “Applicants have to first exhaust the procedure as agreed upon in terms of Clause 13 of the Employment Agreement and only after that, if occasion so arise, they can approach the competent Court for redressal of their grievance.” Referring to the comprehensive procedure laid down under the MCIA Rules for appointment, challenge, and replacement of arbitrators, the Court held that the applicants could not bypass the agreed mechanism and directly seek appointment of an arbitrator from the Court.
Case Title: Athletics Sangh Madhya Pradesh Bhopal v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number: Misc. Petition No. 4181 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(MP) 4
The Madhya Pradesh High Court clarified that arbitration challenges arising from non-commercial disputes with no determinable monetary value cannot be heard by Commercial Courts, even if such courts function at the level of a Civil Judge (Senior Division). The court clarified that the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 applies only when two conditions are met, the dispute must be commercial in nature and must have a specified value as defined under the law. Justice Vivek Jain said that where these requirements are absent, Commercial Courts do not have jurisdiction.
The court observed: “In the present case, since there is no specified value of the claim, therefore, the application could not have been transferred to the Commercial Court and it should continue only as per the Act of 1996 before the Court as defined in Section 2(e) as the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction, which shall be the Principal District Judge or any District Judge under him.” While reaffirming that the Commercial Courts Act can override the Arbitration Act in appropriate cases, the court made it clear that such overriding effect applies only to commercial disputes of specified value.
Case Title: Steel Authority Of India Ltd. v. M/S R Haranadha Reddy
Case Number: ARBITRATION APPEAL No. 14 of 2009
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (MP) 9
The Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur set aside a district court order that rejected SAIL's objections to a Rs 1.54-crore arbitration award, with its reasoning confined to just two paragraphs. The High Court said such a dismissal, without dealing with the objections raised, cannot be sustained. Justice Vivek Jain, while ordering a fresh decision through a reasoned order observed, “Such a non-speaking order passed in course of proceedings under Section 34 cannot be upheld by this Court, because there is no reasonable consideration of the grounds raised by the appellant in the application under section 34.” the court said.
“Though there may not be requirement of having a discussion like a judgment in civil suit, but each and every ground raised must have had some consideration, in at least a couple of lines to show the reasoning of the Court that how the ground raised does not fall within the purview of the grounds as enumerated in Section 34(2) of the Act of 1996,” the court observed.
Case Title : Maverick Developer And Colonizers Pvt. Ltd. v. Project Officer
Case Number : ARBITRATION CASE No. 112 of 2019
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (MP) 8
The Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur has held that disputes arising out of works contracts with municipal corporations covered by the MP Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 cannot be taken to arbitration under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and must instead be decided by the state's statutory arbitration tribunal. Justice Vivek Jain held that although municipalities are described in the Constitution as institutions of local self-government, this does not place them beyond the financial and supervisory control of the State Government.
Rejecting the contractor's argument, the court observed, “The self-government as prescribed in Article 243-P(e) has to be understood in the manner of self-government of the Municipal area or the local area for which the Municipality is functioning. It cannot be construed to be a self-government institution vis-à-vis the State Government and to bring it out of financial and supervisory control of the State Government.”Case Title : Late Shri Smt. Navlibai W/o Shri Bhagwanlajji Mehta (Deceased) Through Legal Representatives & Ors. v. Motilal Khatri
Case Number : Arbitration Appeal No. 22 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (MP) 15
The Madhya Pradesh High Court at Indore has held that the limitation period for challenging an arbitral award begins only from the date on which a signed copy of the award is delivered to the party, setting aside a Commercial Court order that had dismissed a challenge as time-barred. A division bench of Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla and Justice Alok Awasthi ruled that Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 must be read together with Section 31(5), which mandates delivery of a signed copy of the award to each party.
“As per the provisions of Section 31(5) of the Act, it is the duty of the Arbitrator to deliver a signed copy to each party. From the aforesaid order-sheet, it is axomatic that the presence of the present appellant/respondent was not recorded and the copy of the award was not delivered to them. The provisions of Section 34(3) of the Act has to be read along with Section 31(5) of the Act and, therefore, the limitation would count from the date when signed copy of the award is delivered to the appellant(s). The aforesaid aspect have not been considered while rejecting the application for condonation of delay,” the court observed.
Patna High Court
Case Title : Ankit Enterprises vs. M/S Shri Ram Sunil Kumar & Anr.
Case Number : Civil Revision No. 6 of 2023
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(PAT) 5
The Patna High Court has reaffirmed that a civil revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure does not lie against such an order passed under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 where the statute provides a specific appellate remedy.
The Court held that the Arbitration Act is a self-contained code and that Section 37 exhausts the appellate remedies.
Justice Ramesh Chand Malviya observed, “It is settled principles of law that the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 being a self-contained code, no revision under Section 115 CPC lies against such an order. Section 37 exhausts the appellate remedies and permitting a revision would amount to judicial interference not contemplated by the Act.” It relied on Supreme Court precedents emphasising that the Arbitration Act is a special and exhaustive legislation intended to ensure speedy dispute resolution, and therefore judicial intervention must remain strictly within the limited framework provided under the Act.
Case Title : The New India Assurance Company Limited v. Krishna City Hospital and Anr.
Case Number : Commercial Appeal No. 6 of 2024.
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(PAT) 4
The Patna High Court has ruled that the limitation period to challenge an arbitral award starts only when the party itself receives a signed copy of the award by registered post, and not when a signed copy is merely received on the email of the party's lawyer. "Thus, a conjoint reading of sub-section (5) of Section 31 and sub-section (3) of Section 34 would make it clear that the reckoning point for computation of the period of limitation is the date on which the party making the application had received the arbitral award.", the court said.
The Court held that mere receipt of a signed copy of the award on the lawyer's email, and its subsequent forwarding to the client with an opinion, cannot be treated as compliance with the statutory requirement. The Court observed: "We cannot stretch the meaning of the provision or substitute our own opinion in place of the wisdom of the legislatures as contained in sub-section (5) of Section 31 of the Act of 1996," the court said.