LiveLawBiz Arbitration Cases Weekly Digest: July 26 - August 1, 2026
Shivani PS
4 Aug 2026 9:50 AM IST
Nominal Index
Getwell Healthcare Private Limited v. Dr. Santosh Sahi & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 745
Chief Engineer, Employees' State Insurance Corporation v. Enarch Consultants Pvt. Ltd., 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 737
U.P. State Highways Authority v. M/s Abhijeet Meerut Karnal Toll Road Limited, 2026 LLBiz HC(ALL) 58
Triveni Adhesive and Tapes & Ors. v. The New India Assurance Company Limited, 2026 LLBiz HC(ALL) 56
Fomento Commodities PTE. Ltd. v. Fedders Electric & Engineering Ltd., 2026 LLBiz HC(ALL) 57
K. Samad & Anr. v. Suraksha Asset Reconstruction Ltd. & Anr., 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 420
I.A. & I.C. Private Limited & Ors. v. Atul & Arkade Realty, 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 419
Tata Capital Limited v. Jain Globals & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 417
Usha A. Chandrasekhar & Anr. v. Narang Realty Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.; Pranjil Garhwal & Anr. v. Narang Realty Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 413
Ali Mohammad Baba v. UT of J&K and Others c/w UT of J&K and Others v. Ali Mohammad Baba & Sons, 2026 LLBiz HC(JAM) 21
M/s Hyundai Motor India Ltd. v. M/s St. Antonys Cars Pvt. Ltd., 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 212
National Highways Authority of India v. B. Rajyalakshmi & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 205
Harsha Constructions & Ors. v. VKM Projects Private Limited & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC(CAL) 182
Progressive Construction Limited v. State of Manipur & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC(MAN) 3
Ajay Jain & Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh & Anr., 2026 LLBiz HC(CHH) 20
M/s Saradhi Lines Ltd. & Ors. v. The Indian Hotels Co. Ltd., 2026 LLBiz HC(KER) 149
Superintending Engineer (MM), Purvanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited v. Anamika Conductors Pvt. Ltd., 2026 LLBiz HC(RAJ) 32
Delhi High Court
Case Title : Getwell Healthcare Private Limited v. Dr. Santosh Sahi & Ors.
Case Number: O.M.P. (COMM) 321/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 745
The Delhi High Court has recently upheld a partial arbitral award directing a hospital operator to hand over possession of leased premises. It held that an oral claim of a collaborative venture cannot override the clear terms of a registered lease deed when there is no written agreement to support it.
Justice Om Prakash Shukla observed that arbitral tribunals are not bound by the Indian Evidence Act. However, they can draw guidance from its underlying principles.
In this case, the parties had entered into a registered lease deed, but there was no written document supporting the company's claim that the arrangement was actually a collaborative venture. In those circumstances, the court held that the company's oral plea could not be accepted.
The court observed, "Keeping in view the applicability of the underlying principles of IEA, the contention of Mr. Rai that the relationship between the parties is actually collaborative, has to be excluded in view of Section 91 and 92 of IEA13 since there is no written document to demonstrate the collaborative nature and on the contrary, there is explicit documentary evidence of the contents of the lease deed, particularly Clause 10.4 of the deed along with the unambiguous admission of the Petitioner."
Email Delivery Of Scanned Signed Arbitral Award Starts Limitation For Challenge: Delhi High Court
Case Title : Chief Engineer, Employees' State Insurance Corporation v. Enarch Consultants Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : O.M.P. (COMM) 529/2024
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 737
The Delhi High Court on 7 July held that an arbitrator's email transmitting a scanned signed copy of an arbitral award amounts to valid delivery under Section 31(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and starts the limitation period for challenging the award under Section 34.
Justice Om Prakash Shukla dismissed a petition by the Chief Engineer, Employees' State Insurance Corporation (ESIC), challenging an arbitral award dated 19 August 2023 in favour of Enarch Consultants as time-barred, noting that limitation began on 21 August 2023, when the sole arbitrator emailed the scanned signed copy to the parties and their counsel. He held:
“... limitation under Section 34(3) commenced … when the scanned signed copy of the Arbitral Award was delivered by the learned Sole Arbitrator in compliance with Section 31(5) of the Act.
Once the commencement of limitation is determined, the consequences under Section 34(3) follow inexorably. The period of three months prescribed by the statute, together with the further period of thirty days contemplated by the proviso, constitutes the maximum period within which the Court is empowered to entertain a petition under Section 34. Beyond the said period, the jurisdiction of the Court itself stands exhausted.”
Allahabad High Court
Case Title: U.P. State Highways Authority v. M/s Abhijeet Meerut Karnal Toll Road Limited
Case Number: APPEAL UNDER SECTION 37 OF ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996 No. - 41 of 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (ALL) 58
The Allahabad High Court on 23 July held that a financial model based on assumptions cannot, by itself, quantify a claim for loss of profits in arbitration, and set aside the Rs. 157.57 crore loss of profits award against the U.P. State Highways Authority.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Jaspreet Singh partly allowed the Authority's appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, severed the loss of profits component of the arbitral award, upheld the remaining findings and remitted the loss of profits claim to an arbitral tribunal constituted in accordance with law for fresh determination. The judges held:
“….the financial model could only be a piece of corroborative evidence, but in absence of any other cogent evidence, it could not be made the sole basis of quantifying claim relating to loss of profits,”
Case Title : Triveni Adhesive and Tapes & Ors. v. The New India Assurance Company Limited Case
Case Number: Appeal Under Section 37 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 No. 2 of 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (ALL) 56
The Allahabad High Court has upheld the setting aside of an arbitral award in an insurance dispute after finding that the arbitrator failed to record findings on key disputed issues, including the validity of the survey report and the basis for awarding the claimed amount, and instead "jumped to the conclusion" that the insured was entitled to the amount sought.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Kshitij Shailendra dismissed an appeal by Triveni Adhesive and Tapes against an order setting aside an arbitral award passed in its favour.
The court observed that the arbitral tribunal's determination "lacks any finding worth the name for discarding the survey report/arriving at the claim amount of Rs. 3,76,00,000/-."
Foreign Award Enforcement Can't Be Refused For Ignoring Contract Or Proof Burden Shift: Allahabad HC
Case Title : Fomento Commodities PTE. Ltd. v. Fedders Electric & Engineering Ltd.
Case Number : CIVIL MISC. ARBITRATION APPLICATION No. - 13 of 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (ALL) 57
The Allahabad High Court on 13 July held that courts cannot refuse to enforce a foreign arbitral award under Section 48(2)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (which sets out the limited grounds for refusing enforcement of a foreign award) merely because they disagree with the arbitral tribunal's appreciation of evidence or findings or the burden of proof.
A Bench of Justice Piyush Agrawal allowed the enforcement application filed by Fomento Commodities PTE. Ltd. and directed Fedders Electric & Engineering Ltd. to satisfy the foreign award with interest within one month. He held:
“Under Section 48(2)(b) of the Act, the enforcement of a foreign award can be refused only if such enforcement is found to be contrary to fundamental policy of Indian law; or the interests of India; or justice or morality….”
Bombay High Court
Service Of Arbitral Award Through Spouse At Same Address Triggers Limitation: Bombay High Court
Case Title : K. Samad & Anr. v. Suraksha Asset Reconstruction Ltd. & Anr.
Case Number: Interim Application (L) No. 30598 of 2022 in Arbitration Petition (L) No. 30595 of 2022
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 420
The Bombay High Court on 28 July held that delivery of a signed copy of an arbitral award to one party on behalf of another party residing at the same address constitutes valid delivery under Section 31(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and triggers the limitation period for challenging the award.
Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh held that K. Samad had received the signed copy of the arbitral award passed in favour of Reliance Capital Limited on behalf of his wife Mekarunisa Samad S. at their shared residential address in October 2013, and dismissed their challenge filed nearly nine years later as barred by limitation. She observed:
“The Applicants were therefore in receipt of the arbitration Award and it would do violence to the provisions of Section 31(5) read with Section 3 of Arbitration Act, if it is held that though Applicant No. 1 had received the Award on behalf of Applicant No. 2, as his own acknowledgment card is signed by some one else, there is non compliance of Section 31(5) of Arbitration Act.”
Jurisdiction Order U/S 16 Arbitration Act Cannot Be Independently Challenged: Bombay High Court
Case Title : I.A. & I.C. Private Limited & Ors. v. Atul & Arkade Realty
Case Number: Commercial Arbitration Petition (L) No. 2846 of 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 419
The Bombay High Court on 27 July held that an arbitral tribunal's ruling under Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (which empowers a tribunal to decide its own jurisdiction) cannot be challenged under Section 34 merely because it upholds the existence of a valid arbitration agreement, as such a ruling is not an interim award.
Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh dismissed a petition filed by I.A. & I.C. Private Limited & Ors. challenging an arbitral tribunal's order allowing arbitration to proceed after finding that the Joint Venture Agreement with Atul & Arkade Realty was genuine and contained a valid arbitration agreement. She observed:
"The ruling in the present case is therefore a ruling on the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal under Section 16, which will have to await the final outcome and cannot be termed as an interim Award."
Bombay High Court Says Freezing Bank Accounts Cannot Be Routine Interim Relief Under Arbitration Act
Case Title : Tata Capital Limited v. Jain Globals & Ors. (Lead Matter) along with connected petitions
Case Number: Commercial Arbitration Petition (L) No. 8727 of 2026 and 46 connected Petitions
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 417
The Bombay High Court has partly granted interim relief to Tata Capital Limited in a batch of 46 petitions arising from loan-cum-hypothecation agreements executed for financing construction equipment.
The court directed the borrowers to disclose their movable and immovable assets, the present location of the hypothecated construction equipment and the contracts under which the equipment is deployed.
Justice Amit Borkar, however, declined Tata Capital's request to freeze the borrowers' bank accounts, direct them to furnish bank guarantees or additional security, and disclose their receivables and cash flows.
The court held that while Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 confers wide powers, interim measures such as freezing bank accounts, which interfere with a borrower's ability to continue business before liability is adjudicated, cannot be granted as a matter of routine. It observed:
"Attachment of bank accounts affects the respondent's ability to continue its business and therefore amounts to interference with its rights even before adjudication of liability. Merely because the petitioner has established a prima facie claim, it does not mean that every bank account of the respondent should be frozen.", the court ruled.
Parties Cannot Invoke Arbitration Beyond Agreed Contractual Limits: Bombay High Court
Case Title : Usha A. Chandrasekhar & Anr. v. Narang Realty Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. (along with Pranjil Garhwal & Anr. v. Narang Realty Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.)
Case Number : Arbitration Application (L) No. 19161 of 2026 and Arbitration Application (L) No. 19259 of 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC BOM 413
The Bombay High Court has held that where an arbitration clause expressly limits who may invoke arbitration and the disputes that may be referred, parties cannot seek appointment of an arbitrator beyond those agreed limits.
Refusing to appoint an arbitrator in applications filed by individual members of a cooperative housing society, Justice Arun R. Pedneker observed, "In view of the specific arbitration clause and the limitations placed therein and the parties having agreed to refer only particular disputes to arbitration, all other disputes inter se between the parties will have to be adjudicated outside the process of arbitration."
The ruling came on applications filed by members of a cooperative housing society against Narang Realty Pvt. Ltd. The judge held that although the applicants were signatories to the redevelopment agreement, the arbitration clause permitted only the society and its members collectively, on one side, to invoke arbitration against the developer. Individual members could not invoke arbitration on their own.
Jammu & Kashmir & Ladakh High Court
Arbitration Can Be Revived Even After Arbitrator's Mandate Ends: Jammu & Kashmir & Ladakh High Court
Case Title : Ali Mohammad Baba v. UT of J&K and Others c/w UT of J&K and Others v. Ali Mohammad Baba & Sons
Case Number : CM No. 5905/2024 in AA No. 28/2016 c/w WP(C) No. 2654/2024
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (JAM) 21
The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has reiterated that even after an arbitrator's mandate terminates for failure to make an award within the statutory period, a court can revive the arbitral proceedings by extending the time, and such an application is maintainable even after the mandate has expired.
Justice Sanjay Dhar made the observation while extending by two months the time for a sole arbitrator to make an award in a contractual dispute arising out of a street-lighting project on the National Highway Bypass from Athwajan to Parimpora in Srinagar.
The court observed, "It is also clear that if an Arbitrator does not make an award within the time period stipulated under sub-section (1) of Section 29-A of the Act or the extended time, the termination of arbitral mandate would not be absolute, but the proceedings before the Arbitrator can continue if the Court allows an application for extension of time, which may be filed even after the termination of mandate of the Arbitrator in terms of sub-section (4) of Section 29-A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act."
Madras High Court
Case Title: M/s Hyundai Motor India Ltd. v. M/s St. Antonys Cars Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : O.S.A. No. 38 of 2021
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 212
The Madras High Court has recently held that the Emden formula, developed to quantify damages in construction contracts, cannot ordinarily be used to assess compensation in disputes arising from automobile dealership agreements.
A Division Bench of Justice P. Velmurugan and Justice K. Govindarajan Thilakavadi observed that the formula is rooted in the unique features of construction contracts and cannot be mechanically extended to commercial distribution arrangements.
"A dealership agreement is a commercial distribution contract and not a construction contract. Damages under a dealership agreement must be proved under Sections 73 and 74 of the Indian Contract Act, on the basis of actual evidence, such as loss of profits, commission, business opportunities or investments, and cannot ordinarily be assessed through the Emden formula," the court ruled.
Madras High Court Sets Aside Land Compensation Award, Says Arbitrator Must Give Reasons After Remand
Case Title : National Highways Authority of India v. B. Rajyalakshmi & Ors. (Batch Matters)
Case Number : O.S.A. Nos. 109 of 2025 & Connected Matters
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 205
The Madras High Court on 22 July held that an arbitrator reconsidering a matter after remand must independently apply his mind and provide reasons for accepting or rejecting the parties' objections, as merely reproducing pleadings and submissions does not constitute a reasoned arbitral award.
A Division Bench of Justices P. Velmurugan and K. Govindarajan Thilakavadi allowed appeals filed by the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI), set aside the arbitral award enhancing compensation from Rs. 1,925 per sq. ft. to Rs. 4,103 per sq. ft. for land acquired for construction of a grade separator at Koyambedu Junction on National Highway NH-716B, and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. It observed:
“A careful reading of the impugned award shows that the Arbitrator has substantially reproduced the pleadings and submissions made by the parties. However, what is absent is the discussion which ought to have followed. The award does not disclose why the objections raised by the appellant were rejected, why Sale Deed No.1181 of 2005 was accepted for determining the market value or how the market value was ultimately fixed at Rs.4,103/- per sq.ft. The reasoning process leading to the conclusion is completely absent.”
Calcutta High Court
Case Title : Harsha Constructions and Ors. v. VKM Projects Private Limited and Ors.
Case Number : APOT 297 of 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 182
The Calcutta High Court has held that an arbitral tribunal cannot use its power to grant interim relief as a mechanism to compel a party to produce evidence.
Justice Gaurang Kanth observed that interim powers under Section 17 are meant to protect the subject matter of a dispute, while matters relating to production of evidence are governed by Section 19 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The judge observed, “Two features of this provision merit immediate attention. First, the powers conferred are interim and protective in nature, designed to preserve the status quo pending the conclusion of the arbitral proceedings. Secondly, the provision is confined to property or things which are the subject matter of dispute, or as to which a question may arise therein. On a plain reading, Section 17 does not contemplate or authorise an Arbitral Tribunal to compel a party to produce documents as evidence in support of the other side's claim. Matters relating to procedure and evidence are governed by Section 19 of the Act. This distinction between preservation of subject matter and compelled production of evidence is fundamental and goes to the root of the jurisdictional question.”
Manipur High Court
Case Title : Progressive Construction Limited v. State of Manipur & Ors.
Case Number : Arb.P. (J2) No. 1 of 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (MAN) 3
The Manipur High Court has, recently, with the consent of Progressive Construction Limited and the State of Manipur, set aside an arbitral award relating to the Thoubal Multipurpose Project (Construction of Earth Dam) and ordered a de novo arbitration.
Chief Justice M. Sundar, while disposing of an arbitration petition filed by Progressive appointed former Chief Justice of the Manipur High court Justice D. Krishnakumar as the substitute sole arbitrator to conduct the arbitration proceedings and render an arbitral award.
The court observed, "In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, owing to various aspects of the matter including an issue touching upon compliance qua Section 31(5) of A&C Act both sides have agreed to have this 25.03.2026 Award made by Mr. Th. Joykumar Singh set aside (without expression of any view or opinion on merits) and resort to de-novo arbitration by a sole Arbitrator who has also been agreed upon by both sides by consent."
Case Title : Ajay Jain & Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh & Anr.
Case Number : CRMP No. 2089 of 2023
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (CHH) 20
On 29 July, the Chhattisgarh High Court held that the existence of an arbitration agreement does not bar criminal prosecution where the allegations prima facie disclose cognizable offences, and that allegations of fraud, concealment of liabilities and fabricated Board resolutions cannot be treated as a mere contractual dispute but must be tested at trial after appreciation of evidence.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal dismissed a petition seeking to quash an FIR and charge sheet arising from a failed Rs. 50 crore takeover of the Seirra Group of Companies. It held:
“The existence of an arbitration agreement does not create an embargo upon criminal prosecution where the allegations disclose commission of cognizable offences.”
Kerala High Court
Case Title : M/s Saradhi Lines Ltd & Ors. v. The Indian Hotels Co. Ltd.
Case Number : C.R.P. No. 329 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(KER) 149
The Kerala High Court on 14 July 2025 held that a claim for return of title deeds remains arbitrable even when framed as a suit for mandatory injunction, ruling that the nature of the relief claimed does not determine arbitrability when the dispute arises from an agreement containing a broad arbitration clause.
Justice T.R. Ravi allowed the reference of the dispute between The Indian Hotels Co. Ltd. and KTC Group entities to arbitration, holding that the expression “any matter in any way connected with or arising out of” the agreement was wide enough to cover the claim for return of title deeds despite the proposed sale not materialising. He observed:
“This Court is hence of the opinion that the return of such documents by the principal is necessarily a matter coming within the purview of Ext.B2 agreement. The words 'any matter in any way connected with or arising out of these present or the implementation thereof or the rights, duties or liabilities of either party thereof in connection with these presents' are of widest amplitude and can even take in a dispute regarding the very existence of an arbitration agreement.”
Rajasthan High Court
Case Title : Superintending Engineer (MM), Purvanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited Vs Anamika Conductors Pvt. Ltd.,
Case Number : D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 5190/2024
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(RAJ) 32
The Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur has held that while a 75% pre-deposit under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (MSME Act) is mandatory for challenging an arbitral award, courts can grant reasonable time to make the deposit instead of insisting that it accompany the challenge at the time of filing.
The court said the statutory requirement must be met before a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is heard on merits, and, in appropriate cases, the deposit may also be made in instalments.
A Division Bench of Justice Arun Monga and Justice Ashutosh Kumar set aside a Commercial court order dismissing an objection petition filed by Purvanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited (PVVNL) against an arbitral award in favour of Anamika Conductors Pvt. Ltd.
“We accordingly hold that while the requirement of pre-deposit of 75% of the awarded amount under Section 19 of the MSME Act is mandatory and must be complied with before the Section 34 application is entertained on merits, the provision does not require the deposit to accompany the application at the time of its presentation, and the Court is empowered to grant reasonable time and, in an appropriate case of demonstrated hardship, to permit instalments for making the deposit.”, the court ruled.