LiveLawBiz Arbitration Cases Weekly Digest: July 20 - July 25, 2026
Shivani PS
27 July 2026 10:24 AM IST
Nominal Index
NASR ULLAH KHAN v ONE97 COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED & ORS, 2026 LLBiz SC 245
South Delhi Municipal Corporation v M/s Delhi Gurgaon Super Connectivity Limited, 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 727
Cosmo Retail Solutions Private Limited v Sumant Agarwal & Ors, 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 716
Resilient Innovations Private Limited (BharatPe) v Unity Small Finance Bank Limited & Ors, 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 735
Spectrum Power Generation Limited v GAIL India Limited, 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 733
National Highways Authority of India v Atlanta Infra Assets Limited, 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 731
M/s Vishal Infrastructure Ltd & M/s OJSC Euro-Asian Construction Corporation Evrascon (JV) v Chief Engineer (Const)-I, North Western Railway, Jaipur & Ors, 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 717
M/s Tuticorin Port Trust (now M/s V O Chidambaranar Port Trust) v Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board & Anr, 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 195
T K Kares v The Repatriates Co-operative Finance and Development Bank Limited (REPCO Bank) & Ors, 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 192
Gurbachan Singh & Anr v Ministry of Road Transport and Highways & Ors connected with National Highways Authority of India v Gurbachan Singh & Ors, 2026 LLBiz HC(UTT) 11
Tecpro Systems Limited (In Liquidation) v Reliance Infrastructure Limited, 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 411
Sarla Advantech Private Limited v Anil Mehta & Anr, 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 407
Waterline Hotels Private Limited v Singapore International Arbitration Centre & Ors, 2026 LLBiz HC(KAR) 128
M/s Fortuna Constructions (India) Pvt Ltd v Smt Shamalamma & Ors connected with Smt Shamalamma & Ors v M/s Fortuna Constructions (India) Pvt Ltd & Anr, 2026 LLBiz HC(KAR) 125
Rajasthan State Warehousing Corporation v Origo Commodities India Private Limited, 2026 LLBiz HC(RAJ) 30
Invis Private Limited v Ajith M R & Ors, 2026 LLBiz HC(KER) 142
Supreme Court
Supreme Court Refuses To Interfere With Ruling Holding Paytm-Nightstay GST ITC Dispute Arbitrable
Case Title : NASR ULLAH KHAN VERSUS ONE97 COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED & ORS.
Case Number : Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 23694/2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz SC 245
The Supreme Court has refused to interfere with a District Judge's ruling holding that a dispute over One97 Communications Ltd's (Paytm) claim seeking refund of ₹99 lakh from Nightstay Travels Pvt Ltd and others under an Assignment Deed is arbitrable.
It dismissed a Special Leave Petition filed by Nightstay App founder and former Nightstay Travels Pvt Ltd director Nasr Ullah Khan challenging the March 13, 2026 judgment of the District Judge (Commercial), Patiala House Courts, New Delhi.
The District Judge had set aside an arbitrator's order holding the dispute to be non-arbitrable and directed the parties to proceed with arbitration.
A bench of Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Alok Aradhe, while refusing to interfere with the District Judge's judgment, observed,
"We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment and order. The Special Leave Petition is dismissed and the accompanying interlocutory application(s), if any, stands disposed of."
High Courts
Delhi High Court
Report Of Expert Board Constituted By Consent Cannot Be Executed As Arbitral Award: Delhi High Court
Case Title : South Delhi Municipal Corporation v. M/s Delhi Gurgaon Super Connectivity Limited
Case Number : EX.P. 23/2017 with EX.APPL.(OS) 203/2018
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 727
The Delhi High Court has held that an expert board constituted through consent orders to determine service charges cannot be treated as an arbitral tribunal merely because the parties agreed to its constitution.
It ruled that the Board's report, which contained recommendations, could not be treated as an arbitral award, decree or any other executable instrument.
Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar dismissed an execution petition filed by the South Delhi Municipal Corporation (SDMC), which sought to recover about ₹15.74 crore from Delhi Gurgaon Super Connectivity Limited (DGSCL) on the basis of the Board's report.
The court held, "The Board was neither constituted as an adjudicatory forum nor vested with the authority to judicially determine disputes between the parties. Its role was confined to examining technical and financial aspects relating to service charges and furnishing its opinion in the form of a report. The Board, therefore, cannot be equated with an arbitral tribunal, nor can its report be treated as a binding adjudicatory determination capable of execution in the absence of any express agreement or legal provision conferring such status upon it."
No Fresh Notice Needed After Award Is Set Aside If Arbitration Was Already Invoked: Delhi High Court
Case Title : Cosmo Retail Solutions Private Limited v. Sumant Agarwal & Ors.
Case Number : ARB.P. 293/2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 716
The Delhi High Court on 16 July held that a party need not issue a fresh notice under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (which marks commencement of arbitral proceedings) before seeking appointment of a new arbitrator after an arbitral award is set aside, if arbitration had already commenced through a valid notice.
A Single-Judge Bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad rejected the objection raised by Sumant Aggarwal and others and appointed Mr. Kapil Sankhla as the sole arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties. He observed:
“Once the disputes stands commenced, there is no need to recommence the same dispute again just because the Award has been set aside. The purport of notice under Section 21 is to intimate one party that there are disputes between the parties and the matter has been referred to arbitration. Simultaneously, the purport of notice under Section 21 of the A&C Act is also to freeze the period of limitation. Once this mandate of Section 21 has been achieved, in the opinion of this Court, the requirement of a fresh notice under Section 21 of the A&C Act is not necessary merely because the award has been set aside.”
Case Title : Resilient Innovations Private Limited (BharatPe) v. Unity Small Finance Bank Limited & Ors.
Case Number : O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 293/2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 735
The Delhi High Court on Friday held that Unity Small Finance Bank could not place before its board a proposal to increase its authorised share capital and amend its Memorandum of Association without the prior written consent of BharatPe, which owns a 49% stake in the bank.
Justice Tushar Rao Gedela granted interim relief to BharatPe (Resilient Innovations Private Limited), holding that the proposal fell within "Reserved Matters" under the parties' Shareholders' Agreement (SHA).
"If the SHA stipulates a particular procedure prescribed for amendment of the MoA/AoA or to the capital structure of the respondent no.1, the respondent ought to adhere strictly to that procedure or none at all," the court ruled.
Delhi High Court Sets Aside Arbitral Award Rejecting Spectrum Power's GST Refund Claim Against GAIL
Case Title : Spectrum Power Generation Limited v. GAIL India Limited
Case Number: O.M.P. (COMM) 64/2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 733
The Delhi High Court has set aside an arbitral award rejecting Spectrum Power Generation Limited's claim for refund of GST reimbursed to GAIL (India) Limited under a Gas Sale Agreement, holding that the award suffered from patent illegality.
The court held that GAIL was required to independently establish that it had deposited GST and that the arbitral tribunal could not rely on disputed tax payment receipts without first deciding their admissibility.
Justice Avneesh Jhingan observed, "In the absence of the issue of admissibility having been decided by the tribunal, non cross-examination of RW-2 on the tax receipts produced shall not prove fatal to the case of the petitioner. The respondent has to stand on its own legs to prove the tax paid. In other words, production of the tax receipts without having been held to be admissible cannot form the basis for concluding that GST on the transmission of gas was deposited by the respondent."
Settled Disputes Cannot Be Revived Without Express Reservation Of Future Claims: Delhi High Court
Case Title : National Highways Authority of India v. Atlanta Infra Assets Limited
Case Number : O.M.P. (COMM.) 161/2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 731
The Delhi High Court on 23 July held that parties cannot reopen issues settled through a settlement agreement after acting upon the settlement without reserving any future claims, as such a course would undermine certainty, consistency and finality in disputes.
Justice Tushar Rao Gedela upheld an arbitral award granting Atlanta Infra Assets Limited a 53-day extension of the concession period for the Nagpur-Kondhali section of National Highway-6 in Maharashtra, including an additional 28 days for reduced toll collections during the COVID-19 pandemic. He observed:
“It cannot be gainsaid that parties to a lis cannot be permitted to re-open issues which have been determined by way of a Settlement Agreement lest it may lead to uncertainty, inconsistency, and lack of finality to disputes. The findings of the learned Arbitral Tribunal in this context do not suffer from any perversity and are clearly plausible, and within its domain. In any case, findings of fact do not warrant interference under Section 34 of the Act.”
Case Title : M/s Vishal Infrastructure Ltd. & M/s OJSC Euro-Asian Construction Corporation Evrascon (JV) v. Chief Engineer (Const)-I, North Western Railway, Jaipur & Ors.
Case Number: O.M.P. (I) (COMM.) 240/2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 717
The Delhi High Court has refused an interim plea under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act seeking to restrain North Western Railway from invoking performance bank guarantees worth about ₹17.24 crore furnished under a ₹474.52 crore EPC contract for the redevelopment of Jodhpur Railway Station.
The court held that the contractor had failed to establish the limited grounds on which unconditional bank guarantees can be restrained.
Justice Subramonium Prasad held that the contractor had neither established fraud nor shown that the guarantees had been invoked outside the contract.
"Petitioner has not brought out any case of fraud or that the bank guarantee has been invoked by the Respondent outside the contract for which the guarantor is not liable. In view of the settled principle of law, injunction in the present case cannot be granted for the bank guarantees. If and when the matter is referred to arbitration and is placed before the DAB and if the DAB is not able to adjudicate the dispute, the matter will be referred to arbitration and it is open for the Petitioner to claim damages if bank guarantee has not been invoked.", it observed.
Madras High Court
Madras High Court Sets Aside Part Of Arbitral Award Against Tuticorin Port Trust Over Water Charges
Case Title : M/s. Tuticorin Port Trust (now M/s. V.O. Chidambaranar Port Trust) v. Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board & Anr.
Case Number : O.S.A. No. 30 of 2020
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 195
The Madras High Court has partly set aside an arbitral award that held Tuticorin Port Trust (now V.O. Chidambaranar Port Trust) liable to pay water charges under the "Other Beneficiaries" category from December 1, 2002. The dispute arose between the Port Trust and the Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board (TWAD Board).
A division bench of Justice P. Velmurugan and Justice K. Govindarajan Thilakavadi held that the award suffered from patent illegality. It found that the arbitrator failed to explain why the finding that 90% of the water supplied to the Port Trust was used for domestic purposes became irrelevant after the revised tariff classification came into force.
It observed, "The Award does not adequately explain why the finding regarding the domestic use of water was no longer relevant after the revised classification came into force."
Case Title : T.K. Kares v. The Repatriates Co-operative Finance and Development Bank Limited (REPCO Bank) & Ors.
Case Number : CRP No. 3608 of 2026 & CMP No. 15693 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 192
The Madras High Court has upheld execution proceedings initiated by a Sales Officer appointed by the Central Registrar to enforce an arbitral award passed under the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002, holding that where the Act itself provides the procedure for execution, the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, does not govern the process.
Justice P.B. Balaji dismissed a civil revision petition filed by T.K. Kares, the judgment-debtor, who had challenged the execution proceedings initiated in favour of The Repatriates Co-operative Finance and Development Bank Limited (REPCO Bank).
The court observed, "Section 84(5) clearly opens with a rider that the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act would apply, only if not otherwise provided under this Act. When Section 94 clearly provides for the manner of execution of decisions or orders made under the Act, including Section 84, with the amendment coming into effect on 03.08.2023, I am unable to see any merit in the contention put forth by the learned counsel fro the petitioner that only the provisions in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act would apply and not the provisions of the Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002.
Uttarakhand High Court
Case Title : Gurbachan Singh & Anr. v. Ministry of Road Transport and Highways & Ors. connected with National Highways Authority of India v. Gurbachan Singh & Ors.
Case Number : Appeal from Order No. 224 of 2023 and Appeal from Order No. 307 of 2023
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(UTT) 11
The Uttarakhand High Court on 19 June held that an arbitral tribunal cannot determine the market value of acquired land under Section 26(1)(b) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, unless it follows the statutory methodology of considering registered sale deeds executed during the three years immediately preceding the proposed acquisition and identifies the transactions relied upon.
Justice Ravindra Maithani upheld the arbitral award granting landowners Gurbachan Singh and Harjinder Kaur compensation at Rs. 11,000 per square metre while deciding cross appeals filed by them and the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI). He held:
“It is evident that under issue no. 3, the AT did not follow the scheme of Section 26(1)(b) of the 2013 Act. Which sale deeds were considered? It is nowhere specified by the AT. What were the rates in those sale deeds? Sale deeds of preceding three years were to be taken into consideration, which has not been done.”
Bombay High Court
Arbitration Initiated by Liquidator Without Prior NCLT Approval Isn't Void: Bombay High Court
Case Title : Tecpro Systems Limited (In Liquidation) v. Reliance Infrastructure Limited
Case Number : Commercial Arbitration Application No. 245 of 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC BOM 411
The Bombay High Court has recently held that while prior approval of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) is mandatory before a liquidator initiates legal proceedings on behalf of a company in liquidation, commencing arbitration without such approval does not render the proceedings void.
Instead, such proceedings merely remain legally ineffective until the NCLT grants the requisite permission, from which date the arbitration notice becomes operative.
Delivering the ruling in an application filed by Tecpro Systems Limited (In Liquidation), Justice Arun R. Pedneker appointed former Chief Justice of the Kerala High Court, Justice Nitin Jamdar, as the sole arbitrator to adjudicate disputes and differences arising out of and in connection with the purchase order executed between the parties.
The court observed, "This Court is, therefore, of the view that while prior permission under Section 33(5) is mandatory, the absence of such prior permission before the initiation of the legal proceedings, does not render the proceedings void ab initio. Instead, the commencement of such proceedings remains ineffective until the date on which the required permission is granted by the Adjudicating Authority."
Case Title : Sarla Advantech Private Limited v. Anil Mehta & Anr.
Case Number : Commercial Arbitration Petition (L) No. 22020 of 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC BOM 407
The Bombay High Court has recently held that execution of a fresh employment agreement does not, by itself, extinguish an arbitration agreement contained in an earlier contract.
It observed that whether the earlier contract stood completely substituted depends on the parties' intention, which must be gathered from the overall transaction rather than from the later agreement alone.
Justice Amit Borkar delivered the ruling while partly allowing a petition filed by Sarla Advantech Private Limited against its former Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer, Anil Mehta, and Percivon Technologies Private Limited.
Pending arbitration, the court restrained Mehta and Percivon Technologies from using or disclosing the company's confidential and proprietary information.
Holding that execution of a subsequent agreement is not conclusive by itself, the court observed,
"However, mere execution of a fresh document is not decisive. Law recognizes a distinction between execution of another agreement and complete substitution of the earlier contract. Every subsequent agreement does not wipe out all earlier contractual obligations. Whether complete substitution has taken place depends upon the intention of the parties gathered from the entire transaction."
Karnataka High Court
Supreme Court Alone Can Decide Replacement Of Arbitrator It Appointed: Karnataka High Court
Case Title : Waterline Hotels Private Limited v. Singapore International Arbitration Centre & Ors.
Case Number : Writ Petition No. 16178 of 2026 (GM-RES)
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(KAR) 128
The Karnataka High Court has held that once the Supreme Court appoints an arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, any issue arising later that affects the constitution of the arbitral tribunal, including the arbitrator's recusal, withdrawal or substitution, can be decided only by the Supreme Court.
A single-judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj observed, "The appointment of the Arbitrator was not by the institutional mechanism of SIAC or from any consensual process between the parties but from a judicial order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Once the appointment of the Tribunal has been made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, any supervening event affecting the constitution of the Tribunal, including the recusal, withdrawal or substitution of the Arbitrator, necessarily falls within the domain of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that originally constituted the Tribunal."
Case Title : Fortuna Constructions (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Smt. Shamalamma & Ors. connected with Smt. Shamalamma & Ors. v. M/s Fortuna Constructions (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
Case Number : Commercial Appeal No. 137 of 2024 c/w Commercial Appeal No. 190 of 2024
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(KAR) 125
The Karnataka High Court has upheld an arbitral award cancelling a Joint Development Agreement (JDA) between Fortuna Constructions (India) Pvt. Ltd. and a group of landowners for a residential apartment project in Bengaluru.
It held that the arbitral tribunal was justified in refusing specific performance after finding that both sides had failed to fulfil their contractual obligations.
A bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C.M. Poonacha observed that the tribunal had not decided the dispute merely on equitable considerations. Instead, it had reached its conclusion after finding that both parties were in breach of their obligations under the agreement.
"The observation of the Arbitral Tribunal that it was in the interest of justice and equity to cancel the JDA, in effect denying its specific performance, must be read in conjunction with the finding that both parties were in default of their obligations.", the court noted.
Rajasthan High Court
Order Requiring Deposit Of Entire Arbitral Award For Stay Not Appealable: Rajasthan High Court
Case Title : Rajasthan State Warehousing Corporation v. Origo Commodities India Private Limited
Case Number : D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2450/2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(RAJ) 30
The Rajasthan High Court has held that an order directing a party to deposit the entire arbitral award amount as a condition for staying enforcement of the award is not appealable under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Holding that Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, does not create an independent right of appeal, the bench observed, "As an upshot, we hold that an order passed under Section 36(3), whether granting stay unconditionally, conditionally, or refusing it, is not appealable under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act, and Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 confers no independent right of appeal against it."
Kerala High Court
Court-Recorded Compromise In Arbitration Dispute Can Be Executed: Kerala High Court
Case Title : Invis Private Limited v. Ajith M.R and Ors
Case Number: OP(C) No. 2182 of 2024
Citation :2026 LLBiz HC(KER) 142
The Kerala High court has held that a compromise recorded while disposing of proceedings under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is executable.
It observed that a party which voluntarily enters into a settlement, secures its benefits and invites the court to pass an order in terms of the compromise cannot later contend that the order is unenforceable.
Justice T.R. Ravi said, "After having arrived at a settlement and having invited the court to pass an order in terms of the settlement, it is not open to the petitioner to claim at a later point of time, that the said order cannot be enforced. The claim itself is preposterous particularly since the benefit of the said settlement has already been earned by the petitioner by having procured the compliance of the obligations of the 1st respondent."