LiveLawBiz Arbitration Cases Weekly Digest: August 31 - September 5, 2026
Shivani PS
7 Sept 2026 3:03 PM IST
NOMINAL INDEX
Uttar Pradesh Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Limited (UPRVUNL) v. M/s Adani Enterprises Limited, 2026 LLBiz SC 291
Larsen and Toubro Limited v. India International Convention and Exhibition Centre Limited
Zee Learn Limited v. Pragati Shiksha Shrot Trust, 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 472
M/s URC Construction (P) Ltd. v. Airports Authority of India, 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 922
Omaxe Ltd. v. Asha Saini, 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 917
Jindal ITF Limited v. NTPC Limited & Anr., 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 916
Otsuka Chemical (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Trans Engineers India Pvt. Ltd., 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 908
Hanson Agro Limited v. GAIL (India) Limited, 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 910
DC Multi Modal Park Pvt. Ltd. v. Maharashtra MMLP Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 906
Daiichi Sankyo Company, Limited v. Malvinder Mohan Singh and Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 900
J&K Lakes & Waterways Development Authority & Ors. v. Mohammad Amin Shah, 2026 LLBiz HC(JAM) 28
M/s Hedge Finance Limited v. Sangeetha A.V., 2026 LLBiz HC(KER) 174
Mr. A.R. Krishnamani v. Lakepoint Builders Pvt. Ltd. and Anr., 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 151
Badri Narayan Bhatter and Another v. Hari Narayan Bhatter and Another, 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 204
Eros Technologies Digital FZE v. Ayngaran International Media Private Limited & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 253
Supreme Court
Case Title : UTTAR PRADESH RAJYA VIDYUT UTPADAN NIGAM LIMITED (UPRVUNL) VS. M/S ADANI ENTERPRISES LIMITED
Case Number :L DIARY NO. - 39836/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz SC 291
The Supreme Court has refused to interfere with a ruling permitting Adani Enterprises Ltd to pursue execution proceedings against Uttar Pradesh Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd and other constituent entities of UCM Coal Company Ltd.
It clarified, however, that Adani's claim must first be satisfied through UCM Coal Company's assets. Execution against the other entities can proceed only if any amount remains unpaid.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana upheld the Allahabad High Court's April 9, 2026, judgment.
The court found that the High Court's findings were supported by the pleadings and documents on record. It nevertheless clarified the order in which the award could be enforced.
The court observed, "In light of the categorical findings returned by the High Court in Paragraph 62 of the Impugned Judgment, which are duly supported by the averments made in the pleadings and the documents on record, we are satisfied that the impugned judgment calls for no interference. However, we deem it appropriate to make it clear that the claim of the decree-holder will firstly be satisfied through the assets of the judgment debtor, namely UCM Coal Company Limited, and it is only if the claim remains unsatisfied that the execution proceedings against the petitioner(s) shall proceed."
Case Title : LARSEN AND TOUBRO LIMITED VS. INDIA INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION AND EXHIBITION CENTRE LIMITED
Case Number: DIARY NO. - 48980/2026
The Supreme Court on Tuesday, 1 September, said it would examine whether an arbitral tribunal can grant interim monetary relief on disputed claims under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
A Bench of Justices P.S. Narasimha and Alok Aradhe issued notice on Larsen & Toubro Ltd.'s challenge to a Delhi High Court judgment which set aside an interim direction requiring India International Convention and Expo Centre Ltd. (IICECL) to release approximately Rs. 227 crore to L&T.
The judges indicated the case raises a “larger issue” on the scope of an arbitral tribunal's interim powers under Section 17, particularly whether it can issue positive monetary directions rather than merely preserve the subject matter of the dispute. They observed:
“This issue of the arbitral tribunal, not merely granting injunctions, as it originally was contemplated, to go further and give positive directions, will have to be considered.”
High Courts
Bombay High Court
Case Title : Zee Learn Limited v. Pragati Shiksha Shrot Trust
Case Number : COMM ARBITRATION PETITION (L) NO.21131 OF 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 472
On 1 September, the Bombay High Court restrained a Dehradun-based school from using the “MOUNT LITERA ZEE SCHOOL” and “MLZS” marks and the MLZS Program pending arbitration.
Justice Amit Borkar partly allowed a petition filed by Zee Learn Limited seeking interim relief against Pragati Shiksha Shrot Trust, Dehradun, pending arbitral proceedings. He held that a former licensee cannot continue using a licensor's mark after termination of the licence agreements. He observed:
“Pending commencement and adjudication of the arbitral proceedings between the Petitioner and the Respondent, the Respondent, its servants, agents, assigns, and all persons claiming through or under the Respondent are restrained from conducting or representing any business, school or educational programme under the name and style of “MOUNT LITERA ZEE SCHOOL” or “MLZS”, or under any mark or name which is deceptively or phonetically similar thereto.”
Delhi High Court
Case Title : M/s URC Construction (P) Ltd. v. Airports Authority of India
Case Number : OMP (ENF.) (COMM.) 155/2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 922
The Delhi High Court has laid down detailed guidelines to its registry for ensuring compliance with stamp duty and registration requirements in petitions seeking enforcement of domestic arbitral awards.
The directions come after the court held that an inadequately stamped arbitral award cannot be acted upon at the enforcement stage merely because the decree holder subsequently deposits the deficient stamp duty.
Where adequate stamp duty is sought to be paid after the permissible period, the statutory procedure, including impounding and payment of penalty wherever applicable, must be followed.
A Bench of Justice Om Prakash Shukla ruled:
“An insufficiently stamped arbitral award sought to be enforced is to be impounded under Section 33 and dealt with either under Section 35 or 38(2).”
“There is no provision in the Stamp Act which permits Decree Holders to deposit adequate stamp duty on an arbitral award after lapse of one month from its execution unilaterally and without payment of penalty (if applicable).”, it added.
Case Title : Omaxe Ltd. v. Asha Saini
Case Number : FAO (COMM) 53/2022 & FAO (COMM) 91/2022
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 917
The Delhi High Court has ruled that a homebuyer can claim compensation for delayed possession through arbitration even though remedies are also available under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, and the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
“Merely because the Respondent elected to invoke the arbitration agreement instead of pursuing remedies under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 or RERA, it cannot be deprived of compensation otherwise legally payable for delayed possession The substantive right to claim such compensation is founded in Section 55 of the Act of 1872, while the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and RERA statutes provides additional forums and statutory mechanisms for enforcement of that right.,” the court observed.
It held that the substantive right to claim such compensation is founded in Section 55 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, while RERA and the Consumer Protection Act provide additional forums and statutory mechanisms for enforcing that right.
The Division Bench of Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora dismissed two appeals filed by Omaxe Ltd. and upheld arbitral awards in favour of homebuyer Asha Saini. The arbitrator had awarded compensation at 15% per annum for the delay in handing over possession of two flats.
Case Title : Jindal ITF Limited v. NTPC Limited & Anr.
Case Number: FAO(OS) (COMM) 45/2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 916
The Delhi High Court has referred Jindal ITF Limited's dispute with NTPC Limited over an arbitral award worth about ₹1,889 crore to a third judge or a larger Bench after the two judges differed on whether the award should be upheld.
The award arose from disputes over delays and deviations in a project for transporting imported coal to NTPC's Farakka Thermal Power Plant
While Justice C. Hari Shankar upheld the award on claims concerning project delays and shortfalls, the guaranteed supply of coal during the first two years of operations, and damages arising from NTPC's termination of the agreement, Justice Om Prakash Shukla agreed with the Single Judge's decision to set aside the award on those claims.
The bench observed that the disagreement would have to be referred for further consideration.
Delhi High Court Revives Otsuka-Trans Engineers 'NIL' Award, Says Extra Work Claim Was Not Proved
Case Title : Otsuka Chemical (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Trans Engineers India Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : FAO (OS) (COMM) 234/2024
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 908
The Delhi High Court on 1 September restored a “NIL” arbitral award rejecting Trans Engineers India Pvt. Ltd.'s Rs. 28.37 crore claim for additional work in Otsuka Chemical (India) Pvt. Ltd.'s Rs. 71 crore turnkey “Lion Project” for expansion of its chemical manufacturing plant at Kotputli, Rajasthan.
A Division Bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Madhu Jain held that the Single Judge had exceeded the limited scope of review under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 by re-appreciating evidence and substituting the arbitrator's interpretation of the contractual terms with an interpretation it considered more appropriate. The judges held:
“The learned Single Judge, in fact, seems to have proceeded on what would have been a more appropriate interpretation of contractual terms, which, in our respectful opinion, is to travel beyond the scope of scrutiny of an Award under Section 34 of the A&C Act.”
Case Title : Hanson Agro Limited v. GAIL (India) Limited
Case Number : O.M.P. (COMM) 356/2016 & I.A. 9148/2016
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 910
The Delhi High Court has recently ruled that merely filing a challenge to an arbitral award after the 2015 amendments to the arbitration law does not, by itself, make the amended rules on arbitrator eligibility applicable to an arbitration that commenced earlier.
Justice Jasmeet Singh observed that where arbitration proceedings had commenced before October 23, 2015, the validity of the arbitrator's appointment must be examined under the law applicable to those proceedings.
The subsequent amendments cannot be applied retrospectively merely because the award was delivered or challenged after they came into force.
Case Title : DC Multi Modal Park Pvt Ltd v. Maharashtra MMLP Pvt. Ltd & Anr.
Case Number : O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 145/2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 906
The Delhi High Court on 1 September dismissed a second petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 filed by DC Multi Modal Park Pvt. Ltd., after noting that the company had obtained a status quo order without advance-serving the successful bidder, even though it had the bidder's complete contact details.
Justice Tushar Rao Gedela held that advance service in proceedings seeking interim relief is essential to ensure that parties who may be affected by an order get an opportunity to be heard and that neither side gains an unfair procedural advantage. The Bench observed:
“The idea behind rules prescribing advance service is clearly laudable. In that, all parties who may be severely or drastically impacted by any order that might be passed by this Court ought to be afforded an opportunity of hearing so as to ensure a level playing field.”
Case Title : Daiichi Sankyo Company, Limited v. Malvinder Mohan Singh and Ors.
Case Number : EX.APPL.(OS) 3764/2022, EX.APPL.(OS) 1615/2025 & EX.APPL.(OS) 3763/2022 in O.M.P.(EFA)(COMM.) 6/2016
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 900
On 31 August, the Delhi High Court ordered a comprehensive forensic audit into the alleged dissipation of assets involving Fortis Healthcare Limited (FHL), its former promoters Malvinder Mohan Singh and Shivinder Mohan Singh, their downstream entities, and 17 banks and financial institutions.
Justice Subramonium Prasad directed S Ramanand Aiyar & Co. to reconstruct the chain of transactions involving Fortis shares, identify the persons and entities involved, and examine whether Court orders were evaded to frustrate enforcement of a foreign arbitral award in favour of Daiichi Sankyo Company Limited. The Bench observed:
“The conduct of the forensic audit is not an exercise in futility. The forensic audit will pin point the exact manner by which this Court was deceived, the dramatis personae who aided and abetted in evasion of Court Orders by misleading the Court, so that the Court can take steps by fixing liability on the perpetrators of dissipation of shares to ensure that the majesty of law is upheld.”
Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Arbitrator Can Award Escalation For Employer-Caused Delay Without Contractual Clause: J&K High Court
Case Title : J&K Lakes & Waterways Development Authority & Ors. v. Mohammad Amin Shah
Case Number: A. A. No. 9900001/2014
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(JAM) 28
On 29 August, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh held that an Arbitrator can award escalation for delay attributable to the employer even when the contract does not contain a 'Price Escalation Clause'.
Justice Shahzad Azeem upheld an arbitral award of Rs. 21.19 lakh in favour of a contractor, finding that the Arbitrator had based the escalation award on the Department's default in supplying construction material and supported the finding with evidence. The Bench held:
“The absence of a Price Escalation Clause does not, on the Arbitrator's reasoning, bar revision where delay is attributable to the employer.”
Kerala High Court
Executing Court Cannot Reject Award Where Parties Mutually Nominated Arbitrator: Kerala High Court
Case Title : M/s Hedge Finance Limited v. Sangeetha A.V
Case Number : OP(C) No. 2206 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(KER) 174
The Kerala High Court on 4 August held that an executing court cannot refuse to enforce an arbitral award on the ground of unilateral appointment of the arbitrator when the parties themselves had mutually nominated the arbitrator in their agreement.
Justice Easwaran set aside an order of the Additional District Court, Kozhikode, which had dismissed an execution petition filed by Hedge Finance Limited to enforce an arbitral award for Rs. 3.47 lakh with 18% interest against Sangeetha A.V. The Bench held:
“In the scheme of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the opposite party, if aggrieved by the award, has to apply for setting aside the same by filing an application under Section 34 of the Act. If the party has not moved any application for setting aside the award, the enquiry under Section 47 of the CPC cannot be enlarged to such an extent, so as to obliterate the award itself unless the award is found to be a nullity."
Karnataka High Court
Case Title : Mr. A.R. Krishnamani v. Lakepoint Builders Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.
Case Number : Writ Petition No. 33403 of 2025 (GM-RES)
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 151
The Karnataka High Court on 25 August partly allowed villa buyer A.R. Krishnamani's petition and set aside an order of the Bengaluru Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge refusing to take on record Right to Information (RTI) replies and other official documents concerning a disputed occupancy certificate.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj held that a party challenging an arbitral award on the ground of fraud can produce additional evidence before a Court exercising jurisdiction under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 only in rare and exceptional circumstances where such material is necessary to decide the fraud allegation. The Bench observed:
“A party challenging an award on the ground of fraud has no right, as a matter of course, to produce additional evidence before the Section 34 Court. Such permission may be granted only in a rare and exceptional case, where the conditions set out above are satisfied and where the reception of the material is absolutely necessary to decide the clause (b) ground, with a corresponding opportunity to the other side to meet it.”
Calcutta High Court
Once Referred To Arbitration Suit Cannot Remain Pending Before Civil Court: Calcutta High Court
Case Title : Badri Narayan Bhatter and Another v. Hari Narayan Bhatter and Another
Case Number : F.M.A. No. 712 of 2025 with CAN 1 of 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 204
The Calcutta High Court on 31 August held that once a civil court refers parties to arbitration under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the suit does not remain pending before the civil court.
A Division Bench of Justices Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Sandip Kumar De allowed an appeal by Badri Narayan Bhatter and another, restored a partition suit and directed the Trial Court to appoint a Receiver for the disputed Kolkata property. The judges held:
“...Section 8 of the Arbitration Act does not allow for continuance of a suit or retention of the same by the court after an order is passed by the court in the suit under Section 8 of the said Act to refer the parties to arbitration. Sub-section (1) of Section 8 of the Arbitration Act clearly provides that upon an application under Section 8 being made, the judicial authority before which such action is brought “shall refer the parties to arbitration”, thus not leaving anything of the suit to be retained before the said Court..."
Madras High Court
Case Title : Eros Technologies Digital FZE v. Ayngaran International Media Private Limited & Ors.
Case Number : OA No. 454 of 2026 and A No. 2680 of 2026 in C.S. (Comm. Div.) No. 140 of 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 253
The Madras High Court has ruled that a copyright infringement dispute can be resolved through arbitration when the parties have agreed to that mode of dispute resolution, holding that the civil remedy available under the Copyright Act does not prevent arbitration.
Justice K. Kumaresh Babu ruled,
“It is true that Section 55 provides for a civil remedy in an infringement of a copyright. There can be no doubt that the civil remedy can also be by a process of arbitration, as arbitration is in the form of alternative dispute resolution between the parties, and if agreed between them...”
The ruling came in a dispute over rights in certain cinematograph films claimed by Eros Technologies Digital FZE through a chain of assignments.