LiveLawBiz Arbitration Cases Weekly Digest: April 27 To May 2, 2026
Shivani PS
4 May 2026 5:00 PM IST
NOMINAL INDEX
M/s Paramount Learning Solutions and Others v. Aakash Educational Services Ltd., 2026 LLBiz SC 173
The State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. M/s Dataevolve Solutions Pvt Limited, 2026 LLBiz SC 169
Ocean View Properties LLP v. Baleshwar Sharma & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 449
Future Coupons Private Limited & Ors. v. Amazon.com NV Investment Holdings LLC & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 443
PTC Techno Pvt. Ltd. v. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 429
Sahaj Bharti Travels v. HCL Technologies Ltd., 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 428
OSA Vendita Pvt. Ltd. v. Bausch and Lomb India Pvt. Ltd., 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 427
Nathu Ram Jain v. Akhil Bhartiya Agrawal Sammelan & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 426
EMR Chowdary v. Engineering Projects (India) Limited & connected matter, 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 440
NKG Infrastructure Ltd. v. Airport Authority of India, 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 442
Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd vs Newton Engineering & Chemicals Ltd, 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 254
Ambuj Hotel and Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. v Ministry of Railways and Anr., 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 246
United India Insurance Company Limited vs UPL Limited, 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 241
Airports Authority of India v Satyavan Vishnu Agate & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 247
Veeramaneni Venugopalrao and Ors. Versus Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd., 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 234
Chief Engineer (Roads-1), Bhubaneswar v. M/s NKC Projects Pvt. Ltd., 2026 LLBiz HC(ORI) 17
VLCC Health Care Limited v. Veeram Raja and Ors, 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 112
M & Company Engineers & Contractors Pvt. Ltd. v. J&K Economic Reconstruction Agency & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC (JAM) 15
Marshal Traders v. J&K Project Construction Corporation & Anr., 2026 LLBiz HC (JAM) 14
Sri Rajendra Prasad Singh v. M/s Arch Construction Thru. Partner Sri Santosh Kumar Singh and 3 Others, 2026 LLBiz HC (ALL) 36
NHAI v Gayatri Devi and Others, 2026 LLBiz HC (MP) 30
Supreme Court
Case Title: M/S PARAMOUNT LEARNING SOLUTIONS AND ORS. Versus AAKASH EDUCATIONAL SERVICES LTD.
Case Number : Diary No. 22100-2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz SC 173
The Supreme Court of India on Tuesday dismissed a plea by Paramount Learning Solutions in a franchise dispute involving an Aakash Educational Services Ltd. coaching centre.
It declined to interfere with the Delhi High Court's judgment of August 7, 2025, which had upheld an arbitral award in favour of Aakash.
A Bench of Justices P.S. Narasimha and Alok Aradhe declined to interfere with the High Court's ruling. The High Court had affirmed an arbitral award relating to the operation of an Aakash coaching centre at Pathankot. It directed Paramount Learning Solutions to pay about Rs. 66.31 lakh to Aakash.
Appearing for Paramount Learning Solutions, counsel contended that the arbitral award was contrary to the terms of the 2016 franchise agreement and suffered from patent illegality. It was argued that the award ignored the contractual framework between the parties and granted monetary reliefs contrary to the contractual scheme.
However, the bench was not inclined to interfere with the High Court's order. It dismissed the petition.
Supreme Court Stays Arbitration In ₹36.53 Crore AP E-Challan Dispute Involving Digi Yatra Developer
Case Title: The State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. M/s Dataevolve Solutions Pvt Limited
Case Number: Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No. 9572/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz SC 169
The Supreme Court recently stayed further arbitration proceedings in a Rs. 36.53 crore dispute between the Andhra Pradesh government and Dataevolve Solutions Pvt. Ltd., the developer of the Digi Yatra app, over settlement of accounts under an e-challan software contract.
A Bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant and comprising Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi issued notice on the State's special leave petition challenging the Andhra Pradesh High Court's order appointing a sole arbitrator, as well as on its applications seeking condonation of delay. The Court directed that further arbitration proceedings shall remain stayed and listed the matter for May 25, 2026.
High Courts
Delhi High Court
Case Title: Ocean View Properties LLP v. Baleshwar Sharma & Ors.
Case Number : ARB. A. (COMM.) 62/2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 449
The Delhi High Court has reiterated that where an arbitral tribunal rejects a jurisdictional objection, including to the impleadment of a non-signatory, the challenge to such a decision can be raised only after the tribunal proceeds with the arbitration and makes an award.
On this basis, the court dismissed as not maintainable an appeal filed by Ocean View Properties LLP against an order of the arbitral tribunal impleading it as a party to the proceedings, even though it was not a signatory to the arbitration agreement.
Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar observed that “the statutory mandate necessitates that any challenge mounted to an order passed in exercise of powers relatable to Section 16 must remain circumscribed by Section 16(5) of the Act, and any challenge thereto would be permissible only at the stage contemplated therein.”
Amazon- Future Coupons Reach Settlement; Delhi High Court Disposes Challenge To SIAC Award
Case Title : Future Coupons Private Limited & Ors. v. Amazon.com NV Investment Holdings LLC & Ors.
Case Number : O.M.P. (COMM) 458/2025 & connected matters
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 443
The Delhi High Court on Tuesday permitted withdrawal of petitions filed by Future Coupons Private Limited and promoter entities, including Ashni Kishore Biyani, against a Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) award in their dispute with Amazon.
The award had held them in breach of contractual obligations and directed them to pay Rs 23.7 crore in damages, along with Rs 77.3 crore and SGD 68,550 towards costs, but the challenge was withdrawn after the parties entered into a settlement agreement dated March 13, 2026.
Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar recorded that “learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties are ad idem that the disputes between the parties stand resolved and the settlement has been formally reduced into a Settlement Agreement dated 13.03.2026.”
Case Title PTC Techno Pvt. Ltd. v. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number O.M.P. (COMM) 129/2019
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 429
The Delhi High Court has recently set aside a 2018 arbitral award arising out of disputes between PTC Techno Pvt. Ltd. and Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., holding that the appointment of the arbitrator by an official of Samsung was legally impermissible.
A Single Bench of Justice Avneesh Jhingan held that the sole arbitrator, Justice Sunil Ambwani (Retd.), had been appointed by the Vice President of the respondent company, which was contrary to Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Court ruled that such an appointment is void ab initio and renders the arbitral proceedings and award a nullity.
“After amendment of Section 12(5) of the Act an employee of a party in dispute can neither be appointed arbitrator nor can nominate or appoint any other person as an arbitrator. The unilateral appointment in absence of an express agreement in writing by the parties to waive applicability of Section 12(5) of the Act is void ab initio," the court observed.
Delhi High Court Upholds Award For HCL Technologies, Rejects Time Extension From Earlier Proceedings
Case Title Sahaj Bharti Travels v. HCL Technologies Ltd.
Case Number O.M.P. (COMM) 180/2026
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 428
The Delhi High Court on 23 April upheld an arbitral award in favour of HCL Technologies Ltd., holding that Sahaj Bharti Travels' claim of over Rs. 3.27 crore towards unpaid Minimum Running Guarantee dues under an employee transport agreement was time-barred.
Justice Subramonium Prasad upheld the Tribunal's refusal to exclude the nearly three-year period (August 2019 to May 2022) spent before the NCLT and NCLAT while computing limitation, as the proceedings were dismissed on merits and not for lack of jurisdiction, and therefore did not satisfy Section 14 of the Limitation Act, as clarified in HPCL Bio-Fuels Ltd. v. Shahaji Bhanudas Bhad. He held:
“It is apposite to state that an application under Section 9 of the IBC and an application under Section 11(6) of the Act are sought for parallel reliefs and hence fails to meet the parameters set out in the HPCL Bio-Fuels Ltd”, adding that “the Tribunal has rightly declined the benefit of the aforesaid section to the Petitioner on the ground that the NCLAT dismissed its claim on merits and not on the question of jurisdiction.”
Case Title : OSA Vendita Pvt. Ltd. v. Bausch and Lomb India Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number: O.M.P. (COMM) 336/2022
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 427
The Delhi High Court has recently upheld an arbitral award passed in favour of Bausch & Lomb India Pvt. Ltd., a leading eye-care products manufacturer. It rejected claims of OSA Vendita Pvt. Ltd., its non-exclusive distributor in Kolkata, for loss of profits.
The court found that the distributorship agreement for the supply of eye-care products did not stipulate any assured or fixed sales commitment. In the absence of such a stipulation, the distributor could not recover losses arising from unsold stock and related investments.
It also affirmed that the arbitral tribunal, being empowered under Section 19 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to regulate its own procedure, was right in rejecting the belated testimony of a new witness. The tribunal had also refused to accept additional documents sought to substantiate OSA Vendita's claim of business losses.
Justice Subramonium Prasad observed that “the Petitioner's attempt to fasten liability upon the Respondent for indemnification of its business losses is not stipulated in the Agreement. The Respondent cannot be held liable for losses incurred by the Petitioner in the conduct of its own business operations.”
Society Election Disputes Involve Collective Rights, Not Arbitrable: Delhi High Court
Case Title : Nathu Ram Jain v. Akhil Bhartiya Agrawal Sammelan & Ors.
Case Number: ARB.P. 738/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 426
Holding that disputes arising out of a society's election process are inherently non-arbitrable, the Delhi High Court refused to appoint an arbitrator and declined interim relief to stay the upcoming elections of the Akhil Bhartiya Agrawal Sammelan.
“An election of a society comprising approximately 1,20,000 members involves collective rights. A challenge to the election process, the appointment of a Chief Election Officer, or the validity of the voter list is not a private dispute between two individuals; it is an action in rem. The outcome of such a challenge affects the democratic rights of the entire electorate and the governing structure of the society as a whole. To put it differently, the disputes pertaining to election, which bind not only the contesting candidates but all those in the electoral roll, are inherently non-arbitrable,” Justice Vikas Mahajan held.
Dismissing the petition filed by Nathu Ram Jain, the court held that such disputes involve collective rights of the entire electorate and cannot be resolved through private arbitration but must instead be addressed under the mechanism provided in the society's constitution.
Case Title EMR Chowdary v. Engineering Projects (India) Limited & connected matter
Case Number O.M.P. (COMM) 400/2017 & O.M.P. (COMM) 408/2017
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 440
The Delhi High Court has upheld an arbitral award holding a subcontractor liable to pay over Rs.10 crore to the main contractor under a back-to-back contract for losses caused by its own poor performance.
Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar said: “The recovery of a proportionate share of those penalties from ACC, as the party whose underperformance caused the termination, is a straightforward application of the contractual framework and of the back-to-back principle that governed the parties throughout.”
“The recovery from ACC has been made contingent upon EPI having actually incurred, or being held liable to incur, such differential cost towards SCCL. The afore-said approach espoused by the learned Arbitrator is consistent with the back-to-back arrangement governing the parties, whereby ACC's liability is co-extensive with that of EPI,” the court said.
Case Title: NKG Infrastructure Ltd. v. Airport Authority of India
Case Number: O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 185/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 442
The Delhi High Court has recently restrained the Airport Authority of India from taking any further precipitative or coercive action against NKG Infrastructure Ltd. in relation to bank guarantees aggregating to Rs. 3.17 crore furnished for the Jabalpur Airport upgradation project, noting that the disputes are already under consideration before a Dispute Resolution Committee (DRC).
It clarified that the present order will not apply to two bank guarantees that have already been processed for encashment.
The court further directed that no coercive action shall be taken against the contractor for a period of ten days after the decision by the DRC.
A Single Bench of Justice Mini Pushkarna held:
“Accordingly, since hearing is already being granted and the matter is being taken up by the DRC in terms of Clause 25 of the Agreement between the parties, it is directed that no further precipitative action shall be taken by the respondent against the petitioner, till the proceedings before the DRC are finally adjudicated.”
“The respondent shall also not take coercive action against the petitioner for a further period of 10 days after the decision by the DRC in the proceedings, as aforesaid”, it added.
Bombay High Court
Case Title: Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd vs Newton Engineering & Chemicals Ltd
Case Number: COMM. ARBITRATION APPEAL NO.1 OF 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 254
The Bombay High Court has recently upheld an arbitral award in favour of Newton Engineering & Chemicals Ltd, dismissing Oil and Natural Gas Corporation's appeal in a dispute arising from delays in the Uran Effluent Treatment Plant project.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Gautam A. Ankhad held that the tribunal's interpretation of the contract was a plausible view and did not warrant interference.
“We do not find any contradiction in the Award or the findings of the learned Single Judge. In any case, we also find that the Tribunal's interpretation is a plausible view arising from the contractual scheme and does not warrant interference.”
Arbitrator Need Not Frame Issue Absent Relief Claim In Statement of Claim: Bombay High Court
Case Title : Ambuj Hotel and Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. v Ministry of Railways and Anr.
Case Number : Commercial Arbitration Petition No. 169 of 2026 and 835 of 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 246
The Bombay High Court on 7 April held that an Arbitral Tribunal is not required to frame a specific issue where a party merely raises a grievance in the Statement of Claim (SoC) without seeking any corresponding relief.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh upheld an award in a dispute between the Ministry of Railways and Ambuj Hotel and Real Estate Pvt. Ltd., and dismissed cross-petitions under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. She observed:
“There was no claim raised by the Claimant challenging the imposition of penalities as being improper and seeking refund of the penalty amount. Mere pleadings in the Statement of Claim raising grievance about the penalty imposed without seeking further relief in that respect did not necessitate framing of an issue in that regard.”
Bombay High Court Upholds UPL Insurance Award, Holds Dispute Is Of 'Quantum' Not 'Liability'
Case Title : United India Insurance Company Limited vs UPL Limited
Case Number : COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION PETITION (L) NO. 10809 OF 2024
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 241
On 22 April, the Bombay High Court held that it would not interfere under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 where an arbitral tribunal adopts a plausible view that a dispute concerns “quantum” rather than “liability”, and upholds an arbitral award arising from an insurance claim under an Industrial All Risk Policy.
Justice Sandeep V. Marne dismissed the petition filed by United India Insurance Company Ltd and upheld the arbitral award in favour of UPL Ltd. He observed:
“The Arbitral Tribunal thus had ample material before it for arriving at the conclusion that the accident was the proximate cause for overhauling of GT Engine. By no stretch of imagination, can it be contended that the findings recorded by the Arbitral Tribunal are so grossly perverse that this Court must invalidate the Award in exercise of powers under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act.”
Case Title : Airports Authority of India v Satyavan Vishnu Agate & Ors.
Case Number : Review Petition (L) No. 18565 of 2025 and Commercial Arbitration Petition (L) No. 33803 of 2025 and connected petitions
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 247
The Bombay High Court has held that, in a case involving airport premises, the question of whether a dispute can be referred to arbitration requires examination by the court hearing interim relief petitions under the Arbitration Act, especially where a law may bar arbitration.
The court said that while arbitral tribunals usually decide their own jurisdiction, this case is different because the sole arbitrator appointed by consent later resigned, leaving no tribunal in place.
Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan observed that "Ordinarily, even if an arbitration agreement had exclusion or even in the absence of any arbitration agreement, parties to a dispute can always consent to proceed to arbitration, with such consent constituting the arbitration agreement. However, where there is a statutory bar, the question that would arise is whether the parties can at all agree to proceed to arbitration. This would be a neat question of jurisdiction. The question of jurisdiction would ordinarily lie before the Arbitral Tribunal but in Section 9 proceedings, the question of jurisdiction would be considered by the Section 9 Court."
"...since the Arbitral Tribunal came to be appointed by consent under Section 9 of the Act, with no occasion for this Court to consider the issues now raised in the Review Petition, in my opinion, the ends of justice warrant a reconsideration of the original Section 9 Petitions afresh on merits, and a case for review on merits has been made out.", it added.
Case Title: Veeramaneni Venugopalrao and Ors. Versus Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd.
Case Number : INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 6578 OF 2025 IN ARBITRATION PETITION NO.166 of 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 234
The Bombay High Court has reiterated that an arbitral award dispatched to a party's last known address amounts to valid service in law, even if the party does not actually receive it, and the limitation to challenge the award begins from the date of attempted delivery.
Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh held that, “Once the signed copy of the Award is shown to have been dispatched to the last known address of the Applicants, the same is sufficient to raise the deeming fiction under Section 3(2) and to draw an inference under Section 114 of Evidence Act,” rejecting the contention that limitation had not commenced due to non-receipt.
The ruling came in a challenge by the partners of Akshar Enterprises to an arbitral award dated December 20, 2021, rendered under the Mumbai Centre for International Arbitration in favour of Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd.
Orissa High Court
Case Title : Chief Engineer (Roads-1), Bhubaneswar v. M/s NKC Projects Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : W.P.(C) No.35734 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(ORI) 17
The Orissa High Court has recently observed that a government authority cannot seek exemption from depositing an arbitral award amount merely on the ground of its status while seeking a stay.
Justice B.P. Routray upheld a Commercial Court order directing the Chief Engineer (Roads-1), Government of Odisha, to deposit the entire award of about Rs. 26.97 crore in a dispute with NKC Projects Pvt. Ltd.
The court held, "It cannot be contended on the part of the Petitioner that he being a Government authority is not required to be directed to deposit the award amount as a condition to stay enforcement of arbitration award in terms of Section 36(2) of the Act.”
Madras High Court
Madras High Court Sets Aside Rental Loss In Arbitral Award Against VLCC In Lease Dispute
Case Title: VLCC Health Care Limited v. Veeram Raja and Ors
Case Number: CMA No. 367 of 2023 in CMP No. 3102 of 2023
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 112
The Madras High Court has partly allowed an appeal filed by VLCC Health Care Limited, setting aside the rental loss component of an arbitral award while upholding damages and arrears of rent against the company.
The court held that once possession of the premises had been handed over, a claim for rental loss for the subsequent period was unsustainable.
A Division Bench of Justices P. Velmurugan and K. Govindarajan Thilakavadi was dealing with an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, challenging an order of the Principal District Judge, Coimbatore, which had confirmed an arbitral award dated February 21, 2015.
Jammu & Kashmir & Ladakh High Court
Arbitral Tribunal's Mandate Not Automatically Terminated After Deadline: J&K & Ladakh High Court
Case Title: M & Company Engineers & Contractors Pvt. Ltd. v. J&K Economic Reconstruction Agency & Ors.
Case Number: CM No.8828/2025 in AA No.23/2017
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (JAM) 15
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has reiterated that an arbitral tribunal does not permanently lose its authority merely because the deadline to pass an award has expired, holding that proceedings can continue if the Court later extends the time.
A Bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar relying on the Supreme Court's ruling in Rohan Builders (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Berger Paints India Ltd. observed:
"it is clear that expiry of stipulated time period for making award only makes the Arbitral Tribunal functus officio but not in absolute terms. It is clear that termination of arbitral mandate is conditional upon the non-filing of an application and if, after the expiry of stipulated time for making the award, an application is made for extension of time for making the awardby any of the parties, the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal would not terminate in a case where the Court grants such application"
Case Title : Marshal Traders v. J&K Project Construction Corporation & Anr.
Case Number : Arb P. No.31/2023
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (JAM) 14
The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh has reiterated that a plea of limitation cannot by itself block the appointment of an arbitrator unless the claim is clearly time-barred, and that such questions should ordinarily be left to the arbitral tribunal.
A bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar relying on earlier precedents held,
“at the time of considering a petition under Section 11(6) of the Act, unless it is shown that the claim is ex facie time barred or hopelessly time barred, the Court exercising power under Section 11(6) of the Act for appointment of an arbitrator should not reject such application.”
It added that even a slight doubt must favour reference to arbitration:
“If there is slightest doubt with regard to arbitrability of the claim on account of it being time barred, the issue for determination in this regard should be left to the Arbitrator and the Court while exercising its power under Section 11 of Act should not venture to determine the said issue at reference stage.”
Allahabad High Court
Case Title: Sri Rajendra Prasad Singh v. M/s Arch Construction Thru. Partner Sri Santosh Kumar Singh and 3 Others
Case Number : WRIT - C No. - 10703 of 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (ALL) 36
The Allahabad High Court on 27 April held that even where a Court appoints an Arbitral Tribunal under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 without examining limitation, the Arbitral Tribunal can still decide such objections under Section 16.
A Bench of Justices Shekhar B. Saraf and Abdesh Kumar Chaudhary held that Arbitral Tribunals retain full authority to decide their own jurisdiction, including limitation, even after a Section 11 reference, and set aside the Tribunal's view that it lacked such power. It noted:
“even if the High Court referred the matter to arbitration, the Arbitral Tribunal under Section 16 of the Act had the power to decide on its own jurisdiction. The Arbitral Tribunal is the forum for deciding all issues that the parties may raise including the issues of limitation that may have not been raised by the parties at the time of order passed by the High Court under Section 11 of the Act.”
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Case Title : NHAI v Gayatri Devi and Others
Case Number : Arbitration Appeals 269-275 of 2023
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (MP) 30
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has upheld a district court's decision to send a land compensation dispute back to an arbitrator after finding that the arbitrator ignored that the land had already been declared urban before fixing compensation.
“The power of remand as held by the constitution bench permits the Court to send the award to the Tribunal for reconsideration of specific aspects and it is not an open ended process rather it is a limited power confined to limited circumstances and issues identified by the Court.” the court said.