LiveLawBiz Arbitration Cases Weekly Digest: August 17 - August 23, 2026
Shivani PS
24 Aug 2026 1:11 PM IST
NOMINAL INDEX
Santosh Associate Private Limited v. Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd., 2026 LLBiz SC 277
Union of India v. M/s ANS Construction Ltd., 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 851
Transtonnelstroy Afcons JV Chennai Metro Limited v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 848
Ratnagiri Gas and Power Pvt. Ltd. v. Dinowic Pte Ltd., 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 842
Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. v. Fitwell Constructions, 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 840
India Tourism Development Corporation v. M/s Bajaj Electricals Ltd., 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 841
Lalit Modi v. BDR Builders and Developers Private Limited, 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 855
Ssangyong Engineering and Construction Co. Ltd. v. National Highways Authority of India, 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 835
Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. v. HCC Samsung JV, 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 836
Samraj Gold Exports Private Limited v. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 462
Avira Tharakan v. Cyriac Njavally, 2026 LLBiz HC(KER) 166
The Project Director, National Highways Authority of India Project Implementation Unit v. Kandukuri Rama & Others, 2026 LLBiz HC(APH) 49
Nagarjuna Fertilizers and Chemicals Limited v. Tecnimont S.P.A. and Others, 2026 LLBiz HC(TEL) 61
M/s. 3F Industries Ltd. v. M/s. Mahalakshmi Trading Corporation, 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 241
Supreme Court
Case Title : SANTOSH ASSOCIATE PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.
Case Number : SLP (C) No. 31245 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz SC 277
The Supreme Court on Monday requested the Chief Justice of India to consider whether a larger Bench should examine the validity of contractual clauses requiring a party to deposit a percentage of its claim before invoking arbitration.
A Bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Manmohan expressed doubts over the correctness of the three-Judge ruling in S.K. Jain v. State of Haryana, which had upheld a similar pre-deposit condition.
The bench was hearing an appeal concerning a contractual clause requiring a contractor to deposit 10% of its claim before the dispute could be referred to arbitration. It requested the CJI to consider whether the questions framed in the judgment warrant reference to a larger Bench.
The court noted that S.K. Jain, decided by a three-Judge Bench, had described the pre-deposit requirement as a “balancing factor to prevent frivolous and inflated claims." It held the condition to be non-arbitrary, reasonable, and having a nexus with the object sought to be achieved.
The present Bench observed that it was “prima facie in agreement” with the reasoning in ICOMM Tele Ltd. v. Punjab State Water Supply & Sewerage Board. That two-Judge Bench had held that a pre-deposit requirement could discourage alternative dispute resolution and undermine its objective of declogging the court system.
The court further observed, “This Court is of the considered view that an arbitration clause cannot impose pre-deposit conditions so onerous as to render the right to sue, at the very threshold, illusory or nugatory. A stipulation mandating the deposit of a substantial percentage of the claim amount, as a precondition to invoking arbitration would inevitably suppress claims, deter recourse to alternative dispute resolution, and thereby defeat its very object.”
Delhi High Court
No Basis To Retain Bank Guarantees After Arbitral Award Is Settled: Delhi High Court
Case Title Union of India v. M/s ANS Construction Ltd.
Case Number O.M.P. (COMM) 373/2019 & I.A. 12632/2019; O.M.P. (COMM) 377/2019 & I.A. 12702/2019
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 851
The Delhi High Court has held that once an arbitral award resolving the main contractual dispute is settled between the parties and the settlement amount is paid, there is no basis for retaining or seeking to invoke performance bank guarantees, security deposits, or fixed deposit receipts (FDRs) furnished under the contract.
Justice Tushar Rao Gedela observed, “If that be so, then once the main claims in respect of the dispute arising out of the contract between the parties is adjudicated and subsequently the arbitral award is settled between parties, there is no reason as to why and on what basis the performance bank guarantees, security deposits, FDRs in respect thereto, can be retained or sought to be invoked by the petitioner.”
The court made the observation while dismissing two petitions filed by the Union of India under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, challenging an April 5, 2019, arbitral award in favour of ANS Construction Ltd.
Case Title : Transtonnelstroy Afcons JV Chennai Metro Limited v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited
Case Number : O.M.P. (COMM) 193/2022
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 848
The Delhi High Court has partly set aside an arbitral award after finding that the majority tribunal had relied on pre-contract cover notes and discussions to alter the terms of an executed insurance policy.
Justice Om Prakash Shukla held that the tribunal could not travel beyond the policy and insert terms that were not part of the executed contract.
The court observed, “The majority members of the Tribunal acceded their jurisdiction by travelling beyond the executed policy to insert words based on a precontract cover notes. An Arbitral Tribunal is a creature of the contract and cannot rewrite explicit contractual provisions."
Case Title : Ratnagiri Gas and Power Pvt. Ltd. v. Dinowic Pte Ltd.
Case Number : O.M.P. (COMM) 534/2019 & I.A. 18412/2019, I.A. 18414/2019
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 842
The Delhi High Court on 17 August dismissed Ratnagiri Gas and Power Private Limited's challenge to an arbitral award directing it to refund USD 714,760.74 with 6% simple interest to Singapore-based Dinowic Pte Ltd. in a dispute concerning the sale and lifting of Naphtha from Dabhol, Maharashtra.
A Bench comprising Justice Mini Pushkarna held that the scope of interference under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is narrower in an international commercial arbitration, and that a challenge to an arbitral tribunal's interpretation of contractual terms cannot be raised on the ground of “patent illegality”. She observed:
“The ground of 'patent illegality' in Sub-Section (2-A) of Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, cannot be sustained in case of International Commercial Arbitration. Further, any challenge to an award in respect of construction of terms of a contract by an Arbitral Tribunal falls under 'patent illegality', and is no longer available as a ground of challenge of an award arising out of an International Commercial Arbitration.”
Case Title: Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. v. Fitwell Constructions
Case Number : O.M.P. (COMM) 292/2023
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 840
The Delhi High Court recently reiterated that an employee of a party to a dispute cannot appoint an arbitrator on its behalf under amended Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Section 12(5) makes persons having certain relationships with a party or the dispute ineligible to act as arbitrators. The restriction can be waived only through an express written agreement between the parties after the dispute has arisen.
The court referred to the Supreme Court's rulings in Bhadra International (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Airports Authority of India and Central Organisation for Railway Electrification v. ECI SPIC SMO MCML (JV) on the ineligibility of arbitrators and equal participation in the appointment process.
Relying on these principles, Justice Avneesh Jhingan observed, "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 between the parties to waive applicability of Section 12(5) of the Act is void ab initio. The filing of the statement of claim or participation in the arbitral proceedings cannot be construed as waiver under the proviso to Section 12(5) of the Act."
Delhi High Court Upholds ₹46.92 Lakh Bajaj Electricals Arbitral Award Against ITDC
Case Title : India Tourism Development Corporation v. M/s Bajaj Electricals Ltd.
Case Number : O.M.P. (COMM) 404/2019 & I.A. No. 13516/2019
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 841
The Delhi High Court on 17 August upheld the arbitral award directing India Tourism Development Corporation (ITDC) to pay Bajaj Electricals Ltd. Rs. 46.92 lakh along with pre-award, pendente lite and future interest, finding that the arbitrator had based the findings on the evidence and contractual terms on record.
Justice Mini Pushkarna noted that courts cannot interfere with an arbitral tribunal's interpretation of a contract under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, merely because another interpretation is possible. She observed:
“If the Contract and the liabilities therein have been interpreted by the learned Arbitrator in a certain way, then the same would not be re-examined by this Court, in a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. Considering the narrow scope of judicial interference in a petition under Section 34, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the conclusion arrived at by the learned Arbitrator."
Delhi High Court Says Consent Awards Open To Challenge, Upholds Award In BDR Builders Dispute
Case Title : Lalit Modi v. BDR Builders and Developers Private Limited
Case Number : O.M.P. 7/2017 & EX.P. 69/2017
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 855
The Delhi High Court on 18 August dismissed a property owner's challenge to a consent arbitral award directing specific performance of an agreement to sell his Vasant Vihar property in favour of BDR Builders and Developers Private Limited.
Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, however, held that a consent arbitral award, though subject to a narrower scope of interference, can be challenged under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to examine whether the settlement was lawful, whether consent was vitiated by fraud, coercion or undue influence, or whether any other statutory ground for setting aside the award was made out. The Bench observed:
“While the scope of interference with an award on agreed terms is undoubtedly narrower than that applicable to an adjudicatory award, there is no statutory embargo under the A&C Act against maintaining a petition under Section 34 merely because the award is a consent award. The distinction lies not in the maintainability of the challenge but in the limited nature of the scrutiny to be undertaken.”
Common Arbitrators Must Explain Contradictory Views In Related Disputes: Delhi High Court
Case Title : Ssangyong Engineering and Construction Co. Ltd. v. National Highways Authority of India
Case Number : FAO(OS) (COMM) 132/2024 & FAO(OS) (COMM) 136/2024
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 835
The Delhi High Court has held that, in peculiar circumstances involving common arbitrators and identical contractual provisions, an unexplained departure from an earlier view in a related dispute can justify interference with an arbitral award.
“The common members of the Arbitral Tribunal are obliged to justify the different view being taken by them in the subsequently passed impugned Award.”, the bench ruled.
A Division Bench comprising Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora made the observation while upholding the setting aside of an award in a dispute between Ssangyong Engineering and Construction Co. Ltd. and the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI).
“Consistency, certainty and predictability are recognized as the hallmarks of a sound justice delivery system. The intent which ordinarily parties have while selecting common members of Tribunals for adjudicating disputes arising between the same parties, in related disputes, is to ensure that parties receive consistent decisions from the arbitral tribunal.”, the court observed.
Case Title : Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. v. HCC Samsung JV
Case Number: FAO(OS) (COMM) 74/2025, CM APPL. 25351/2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 836
The Delhi High Court on Monday observed that it was difficult to believe that an organisation such as the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC) did not know the fundamentals of Section 33 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The court called DMRC's application seeking correction of the arbitral award a “classic case of misuse of Section 33”. It observed that the application may have been intended to obtain “breathing space” to challenge the substantive award.
A Division Bench comprising Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla also imposed ₹5 lakh in costs on DMRC for misusing Section 33.
The amount has to be paid to HCC Samsung JV within 12 weeks from the date of the judgment.
“It is not possible for us to believe that an organization such as the appellant did not know the fundamentals of Section 33 and what is permitted thereunder. This, therefore, is a classic case of misuse of Section 33, perhaps with a view to obtain breathing space to launch the challenge to the substantive award,” the bench observed.
Bombay High Court
Case Title : Samraj Gold Exports Private Limited v. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
Case Number: Arbitration Application (L) No. 12810 of 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 462
The Bombay High Court has recently reiterated that whether an insurance dispute is ultimately arbitrable need not be decided while appointing an arbitrator, leaving that question for the arbitral tribunal to consider.
“A distinction has to be maintained between the final issue whether the dispute is arbitrable and the limited enquiry which this Court is required to undertake at the stage of appointment of an Arbitrator,” Justice Amit Borkar observed.
The court accordingly appointed former Kerala High Court Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar as the sole arbitrator in the dispute between Samraj Gold Exports Private Limited and The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
Kerala High Court
Case Title : Avira Tharakan v. Cyriac Njavally
Case Number: AR No. 60 of 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(KER) 166
The Kerala High Court on 14 August held that questions concerning pending proceedings before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) and limitation must be considered by the Arbitral Tribunal at the stage of arbitration, observing that a Court's enquiry under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is primarily confined to the existence of an arbitration agreement.
Justice S. Manu allowed an arbitration request arising from a dispute over 117 equity shares in Tharakan Web Innovations Private Limited and directed the Kerala High Court Arbitration Centre to nominate a sole Arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the parties. He held:
“Section 11(6A) mandates that the referral court shall confine to the examination of the existence of an arbitration agreement.”
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case Title : The Project Director, National Highways Authority of India Project Implementation Unit v. Kandukuri Rama & Others
Case Number : Writ Appeal No. 799 of 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(APH) 49
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has recently ruled that a party challenging an arbitral award under the National Highways Act, 1956 cannot ordinarily bypass the statutory remedy under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The party cannot directly approach the court under Article 226 of the Constitution
“The N.H. Act and the Act, 1996 are complete code. The statute provides the remedy under Section 34 of the Act, 1996 to challenge the award of the arbitrator on specified grounds and any party aggrieved from the decision under Section 34 has the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 37 of the Act. So, ordinarily a challenge to an award shall be made in proceedings under Section 34 of the Act, 1996 on the statutorily recognized grounds. Challenge to the award directly under Article 226 of the Constitution of India without taking recourse to Section 34 of the Act, 1996, in the absence of any well recognized exceptions being attracted, must ordinarily fail on the ground of statutory alternative remedy. ” a Division Bench of Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Purushottam Kumar Chintalapudi observed.
Telangana High Court
Case Title : Nagarjuna Fertilizers and Chemicals Limited v. Tecnimont S.P.A. and Others
Case Number: Original Side Appeal Nos. 2 of 2025 and 1 of 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(TEL) 61
The Telangana High Court has held that two orders passed in execution proceedings relating to an international commercial arbitration award could not be challenged through a Letters Patent appeal as they were not appealable under the statutory provisions governing such appeals.
The Division Bench comprising Justice K. Lakshman and Justice B.R. Madhusudhan Rao observed:
“The Act, 1996, is a self-contained code which governs all matters pertaining to arbitration, including the right to file appeals. It is trite law that a self-contained code is a special enactment. Such special enactment prevails over general enactments.”
Madras High Court
MSME Council Must Follow Mandatory Arbitration Process Before Passing Award: Madras High Court
Case Title : M/s. 3F Industries Ltd. v. M/s. Mahalakshmi Trading Corporation
Case Number : CRP No. 6542 of 2025 and CMP No. 32321 of 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 241
On 19 August, the Madras High Court held that an award passed by the Chennai Region Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Facilitation Council without initiating arbitration as required under Section 18(3) of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (MSMED Act) cannot be sustained.
Justice P.B. Balaji set aside the Rs. 33.40 lakh award passed in favour of Mahalakshmi Trading Corporation against 3F Industries Ltd., holding that the Council had proceeded straight to an “Award” without following the mandatory arbitration procedure under Section 18(3). The Bench observed:
“it is clear that there has been no initiation of arbitration proceedings as required under Section 18(3) of the Act. In such circumstances, the impugned order, without adhering to the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, commencing from a reference to arbitration and thereafter, calling upon the parties to file their claim and defence statements and further contemplating an enquiry/trial before passing an Award has admittedly not been done in the instant case. Therefore, the impugned order dated 13.03.2025 self styled as an Award has no legs to stand and is liable to be set aside.”