LiveLawBiz Arbitration Cases Weekly Digest : February 9 - February 15, 2026
Shivani PS
15 Feb 2026 10:30 AM IST
Nominal Index
A2Z Infraservices Ltd & Anr vs Quippo Infrastructure Ltd & Ors 2026 LLBiz SC 60
Ankhim Holdings Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. versus Zaveri Construction Pvt. Ltd. 2026 LLBiz SC 53
Aggarwal Sons v. Union of India and Others 2026 LLBiz HC (PNH) 8
Airports Authority of India v. URC Construction (P) Ltd 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 146
E-City Real Estates Pvt Ltd & ANR vs IMAX Corporation & Ors 2026 LLBiz SC 22
Fresh and Healthy Enterprise Ltd v. Global AgriSystem Pvt Ltd & connected matter 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 140
Hala Kamel Zabal v. Arya Trading Ltd & Ors. 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 120
Indrani Sarangi v. Reliance Projects And Property Management Service Limited & Anr. 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 46
J. Muthurajan & Anr. vs S. Vaikundarajan & Ors. 2026 LLBiz SC 57
National Highways Authority of India v. Vadodara Mumbai Expressway PKG-08 Pvt Ltd 2026 LLBiz SC 59
National Insurance Company Limited v. Tirupati Food Products 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 45
Prime Projects v. Prajnanananda Jana Seva Sangha & Anr. 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 47
Shree Dev Shasan Jain Shwetambar Murtipujak Trust v. Veer Tower CHS Ltd. 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 73
Akankha Nirman Private Limited & Anr. v. M/s. Supreme Construction & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 51
Bhadra Enterprises v. Veer Tower CHS Ltd. 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 73
The Commissioner, Solapur Municipal Corporation & Ors. v. M/s S.M.C.-G.E.C.P. Ltd (JV) 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 72
M/s S.M.C.-G.E.C.P. Ltd (JV) v. The Commissioner, Solapur Municipal Corporation & Ors. 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 72
The New India Assurance Company Limited v. Krishna City Hospital and Anr. 2026 LLBiz HC (PAT) 4
B.M. Insulation Private Limited v. Vardeep Petro Chemical Private Limited 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 41
M/s Saffe Systems v. BGR Energy Systems Limited 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 41
Supreme Court
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.”
High Courts
Delhi High Court
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.
Bombay High Court
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.”
Calcutta High Court
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.
Punjab & Haryana High Court
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.
Patna High Court
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.
Madras High Court
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.