LiveLawBiz Arbitration Cases Weekly Digest: July 6 - July 11, 2026
Shivani PS
13 July 2026 12:03 PM IST
NOMINAL INDEX
NCC Limited v. Airport Authority of India, 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 695
Union of India v. M/s ISC-YUG (JV) & Anr. (Connected Matters), 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 686
Vinay Mawandia v. Bimal Mawandia & Anr., 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 684
Shriram Pistons & Rings Ltd. v. Usha International Ltd., 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 680
JPC Infrastructure and Constructions Private Limited v. Alstom Transport India Limited, 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 679
D.V. Anand v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 678
M/s SLR Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. GAIL (India) Ltd. & Anr., 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 673
JWIL Infra Ltd. (Previously Known as JITF Water Infrastructure Ltd.) v. Aquafil-Wintech JV & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC(GUJ) 84
Asean LNG Trading Co. Ltd. (now known as Petronas LNG Ltd.) v. Adani Energy Ltd., 2026 LLBiz HC(GUJ) 89
National Highways Authority of India v. A.L. Sudershan Construction Co. Ltd., 2026 LLBiz HC(KAR) 106
Siemens Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Saroj Diagnostic Laboratory LLP, 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 378
Sedhram Nilkanth Muglikar & Anr. v. M.R. Makhare Arbitrator Arbitral Authority & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 382
Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited v. Afcons Gunanusa Joint Venture, 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 392
The Packshot (India) Private Limited v. Trent Limited, 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 380
Hemant D. Shah HUF & Anr. v. Chittaranjan D. Shah HUF & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 372
Malaney Trading & Services LLP v. Uzer Makina VE Kalip Sanayi A.S., 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 373
N. Mehta Infra Realty LLP v. Deepa Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 386
Jaycee Homes Private Limited v. Kurla Moon Rock Municipal Employee Cooperative Housing Society Limited, 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 389
Central Depository Services (India) Ltd. v. Daksha Narendra Bhavsar & Anr., 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 385
Antariksh Realtors Private Limited v. The Vidyavihar Palmview Co-op. Housing Society Limited & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 374
OWH SE i.L. v. United Company RUSAL International P.J.S.C. & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC(TEL) 45
KPB Consumers v. Swmabhan Commerce Private Limited, 2026 LLBiz HC(TEL) 42
Bharat Sursingh Asher & Ors. v. Rupa Praveen Asher, 2026 LLBiz HC(KER) 123
Marsalin & Anr. v. M/s Shriram City Union Finance Limited, 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 174
Steel Authority of India Limited (IISCO Steel Plant) v. Balaji Industrial Products Limited, 2026 LLBiz HC(CAL) 169
Neo Metaliks Limited v. Orrisa Metaliks Private Limited, 2026 LLBiz HC(CAL) 168
High Courts
Delhi High Court
Case Title : NCC Limited v. Airport Authority of India
Case Number : O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 140/2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 695
The Delhi High Court has recently held that interim relief under the Arbitration Act cannot be used to stay a debarment order where the authority's power to debar is derived from an independent statutory or administrative framework rather than the contract between the parties.
Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar dismissed NCC Limited's petition seeking a stay on an Airports Authority of India (AAI) order debarring it from participating in AAI's future tenders for two years.
The Court observed, “The mere fact that an administrative action is triggered by events occurring during the performance of a contract does not ipso facto transform the action into one arising under the contract. The determinative consideration is not the factual backdrop against which the power is exercised, but the legal source from which such power is derived. If the power to debar is not founded upon the contractual terms agreed between the parties, but emanates from an independent administrative or executive authority vested in the Respondent, the character of the action remains administrative, notwithstanding that the underlying allegations may relate to contractual performance.”
Fresh Copy Of Arbitral Award Cannot Restart Limitation To Challenge Award: Delhi High Court
Case Title : Union of India v. M/s ISC-YUG (JV) & Anr. (Connected Matters)
Case Number: O.M.P. (COMM) 2/2025 and O.M.P. (COMM) 7/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 686
The Delhi High Court has dismissed two petitions filed by the Union of India challenging an arbitral award.
It held that a party cannot allow the statutory period for challenging an award to expire and later attempt to restart the limitation by obtaining another copy of the award.
Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar delivered the judgment.
The court observed, "A party, despite having knowledge of an Award and despite its authorised representative having received the signed copy, could indefinitely postpone limitation by simply applying for another copy months or years later. Such an interpretation would defeat the legislative object of ensuring finality and expedition in arbitral proceedings."
WhatsApp Acknowledgment Of Arbitral Award Shows Acceptance, Bars Delayed Challenge: Delhi High Court
Case Title : Vinay Mawandia v. Bimal Mawandia & Anr.
Case Number : O.M.P. (COMM) 87/2024
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 684
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a challenge to an interim arbitral award after finding that the party seeking to set it aside had acknowledged receiving it on WhatsApp, participated in discussions on its implementation, and acted upon it before questioning the award only after execution proceedings were initiated.
The court held that the challenge to the interim arbitral award, raised more than two years after the petitioner admittedly acquired knowledge of it was barred by limitation.
Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar observed that the petitioner's conduct showed he had accepted and acted upon the award, and that his plea regarding non-delivery of a signed copy surfaced only after the award holders initiated execution proceedings.
"The material placed on record unmistakably demonstrates that immediately after the Award was uploaded in the WhatsApp group created for resolution of the disputes, the Petitioner acknowledged receipt thereof by responding 'Noted thanks'. Such acknowledgement was not a mere formal response but was followed by continuous discussions amongst the parties regarding the implementation of the Award.", the court noted.
Procedural Irregularity Without Prejudice Not Ground To Set Aside Arbitral Award: Delhi High Court
Case Title : Shriram Pistons & Rings Ltd. v. Usha International Ltd.
Case Number : O.M.P. (COMM.) 118/2016 with O.M.P. (ENF.) (COMM.) 216/2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 680
The Delhi High Court on 6 July held that a party challenging the constitution of an arbitral tribunal must establish actual prejudice caused by the alleged procedural irregularity, and that mere dissatisfaction with the appointment process cannot be a ground to set aside an arbitral award.
Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar dismissed a petition filed by Shriram Pistons & Rings Limited challenging an arbitral award passed in favour of Usha International Limited. He observed:
“It is also pertinent to note that the Petitioner has not demonstrated how the alleged procedural deficiencies in the appointment process translated into any actual prejudice during the conduct of the arbitral proceedings. The Petitioner actively participated in the proceedings, filed detailed pleadings, examined witnesses, cross-examined the witnesses produced by the Respondent and fully contested the claims on merits. In the absence of any demonstrated prejudice, the challenge cannot succeed merely on speculative assertions concerning the process of appointment.”
Case Title : JPC Infrastructure and Constructions Private Limited v. Alstom Transport India Limited
Case Number : O.M.P. (COMM.) 124/2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 679
The Delhi High Court has held that confidential material from a separate arbitration cannot be relied upon in another arbitral proceeding merely because the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) Rules do not expressly prohibit its use.
It upheld an arbitral award in favour of Alstom Transport India Limited after finding that the arbitral tribunal was justified in refusing to admit such material.
Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar observed, "A statutory mandate enacted by Parliament therefore cannot be diluted, displaced or overridden by institutional rules framed by an arbitral institution. Consequently, the learned Tribunal was fully justified in treating Section 42A of the A&C Act as controlling and binding irrespective of any interpretation sought to be placed upon the ICC Rules."
Delhi High Court Sets Aside HPCL Penalty For Undisclosed Fake LPG Connections, Upholds Award In Part
Case Title : D.V. Anand v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.
Case Number : FAO(OS) (COMM) 139/2018 & CM APPL. 49092/2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 678
The Delhi High Court on 1 July held that an arbitral tribunal cannot uphold a penalty for alleged fake LPG consumer connections without evidence establishing that the connections were fictitious or without disclosing their identities to the affected party. Such findings are patently illegal and liable to be set aside.
A Division Bench of Justices C. Hari Shankar and Om Prakash Shukla partly allowed an appeal filed by LPG distributor D.V. Anand against an arbitral award that upheld a penalty imposed by Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (HPCL). The judges observed:
“The conclusion that the said connections were fake solely because the Appellant failed to establish their genuineness is, in our opinion, manifestly perverse and discloses a clear flaw in the decision-making process, since no reasonable person could have expected the Appellant to prove the genuineness of connections whose particulars had never been disclosed to it in the first place. What further compounds the perversity is that vital material on record, which clearly demonstrated that particulars of all 826 connections alleged to be fake were never within the knowledge of the Appellant, was completely ignored while arriving at the aforesaid conclusion, thereby materially affecting the ultimate finding rendered by the learned Arbitrator.”
Section 9 Arbitration Act Not For Interim Recovery Based On Bill Certification: Delhi High Court
Case Title : M/s SLR Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. GAIL (India) Ltd. & Anr.
Case Number : FAO(OS) (COMM) 150/2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 673
The Delhi High Court on 1 July held that certification or processing of bills does not, by itself, amount to crystallised liability warranting interim monetary directions under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, particularly where disputes relating to deductions, delays and adjustments remain unresolved.
A Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetrapal and Amit Mahajan dismissed SLR Construction Pvt. Ltd.'s appeal against the order refusing interim relief for release of Rs. 2.08 crore in relation to a pipeline terminal works contract awarded by GAIL (India) Ltd. It observed:
“Mere certification or processing of bills by the Project Management Consultant, or internal processing of invoices by GAIL, cannot by themselves be treated as conclusive determination of inter se contractual rights and liabilities so as to justify grant of payment directions under Section 9 of the A&C Act.”
Gujarat High Court
Case Title : JWIL Infra Ltd. (Previously Known as JITF Water Infrastructure Ltd.) v. Aquafil-Wintech JV & Ors.
Case Number : R/Special Civil Application No. 1309 of 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(GUJ) 84
The Gujarat High Court on 29 June held that a party cannot revive an issue through a fresh application after failing to raise an available contention at the appropriate stage, holding that such an attempt is barred by the principles of constructive res judicata, waiver and finality of litigation.
Justice Niral R. Mehta dismissed a petition filed by JWIL Infra Ltd. (formerly JITF Water Infrastructure Ltd.) under Article 227 of the Constitution and upheld the arbitral tribunal's order refusing to recall a witness for cross examination in its dispute with Aquafil Wintech JV. He observed:
“The doctrine of constructive res judicata is founded upon the principle that a party ought to raise, at the appropriate stage, every contention which it could and should have raised. If a litigant deliberately omits to raise an available contention and allows the adjudication to attain finality, such contention cannot ordinarily be permitted to be resurrected in subsequent proceedings arising out of the same cause.”
Case Title : Asean LNG Trading Co. Ltd. (now known as Petronas LNG Ltd.) v. Adani Energy Ltd.
Case Number : R/First Appeal No. 3694 of 2018 (with Civil Application (For Stay) No. 1 of 2018)
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(GUJ)89
The Gujarat High Court has upheld an order refusing to enforce a foreign arbitral award that had directed Adani Energy Ltd. to pay USD 109.95 million to Asean LNG Trading Co. Ltd. (now Petronas LNG Ltd.) on the basis that Adani had triggered the 'Take or Pay' clause by failing to accept contracted LNG cargoes.
Under a 'Take or Pay' clause, a buyer must either accept and pay for the contracted quantity of goods or compensate the seller even if it does not take delivery, subject to the terms of the contract.
Holding that the arbitral tribunal had wrongly proceeded on the premise that a concluded contract had come into existence despite the parties never agreeing on essential commercial terms, the Court found that fastening 'Take or Pay' liability on Adani was contrary to the fundamental and substratal principles of Indian contract law.
Dismissing Petronas LNG's appeal against a single-judge bench order, the Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice D.N. Ray held,
"With the above, we reach at an irresistible conclusion that none of the reasonings given by the enforcement Court for refusal would violate Explanation 2 of Section 48(2)(b) of the Act' 1996 and that the liability of Take or Pay triggered in the facts of the present case defies all logic."
Karnataka High Court
Case Title : NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA vs A.L. SUDERSHAN CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD.
Case Number : COMMERCIAL APPEAL NO.176 OF 2021
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 106
The Karnataka High Court has declined to entertain an objection by an erstwhile director of A.L. Sudershan Construction Co. Ltd. against a settlement with the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) over an arbitral award
The court observed that the company was under liquidation and was duly represented by the Resolution Professional, and that any objection would have been raised at an appropriate time before the National Company Law Tribunal.
A Division Bench of Justices Anu Sivaraman and Venkatesh Naik T made the observation while accepting a settlement between NHAI and the company under the Vivad Se Vishwas-III Scheme.
"In the above view of the matter, respondent No.5, who is an erstwhile Director of the Company, cannot have the right to oppose this application for settlement in view of the fact that the Company is in liquidation and respondent No.1 is duly represented by the Resolution Professional. Any objections would have been raised at an appropriate time by respondent No.5 before the National Company Law Tribunal and not before this Court, in these proceedings.", the court observed.
Bombay HIgh Court
Bombay HC Holds Mumbai Was Arbitration Seat In Siemens' ₹7.38 Cr Loan Dispute, Appoints Arbitrator
Case Title : Siemens Financial Services Pvt. Ltd vs Saroj Diagnostic Laboratory LLP
Case Number : COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION APPLICATION NO.241 OF 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 378
The Bombay High Court on 2 July, appointed Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur (Retd.), former Chief Justice of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, as the sole arbitrator to adjudicate disputes arising from a Rs. 7.38 crore loan facility extended by Siemens Financial Services Pvt Ltd to Saroj Diagnostic Laboratory LLP.
Justice Gautam A. Ankhad held that where an arbitration agreement specifies a place of arbitration and also grants jurisdiction to courts at that place, such provisions can indicate that the parties intended that place to be the juridical seat of arbitration. He held:
"In the present case, the Agreement specifically provides that the place of arbitration shall be Mumbai. Clause 16(d) expressly confers jurisdiction upon the Courts at Mumbai. There is no provision in the Agreement suggesting any different seat of arbitration. These provisions, read harmoniously, demonstrate the parties intention to treat Mumbai as the juridical seat of arbitration."
'Deemed Service' Cannot Cure Defect In Service Of Arbitration Notices: Bombay High Court
Case Title : Sedhram Nilkanth Muglikar And Anr. Versus M. R. Makhare Arbitrator Arbitral Authority And Ors.
Case Number : ARBITRATION APPEAL NO. 18 OF 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 382
The Bombay High Court has recently held that the legal presumption that arbitration notices have been served cannot be mechanically invoked where there is no proof that the notices actually reached the parties. Setting aside an arbitral award, the court observed:
Justice Arif S. Doctor also quashed an April 4, 2025 judgment of the District Judge, Pune. The District Judge had dismissed the borrowers' challenge to an arbitral award passed in favour of Abhyudaya Co-operative Bank Ltd. in a loan recovery dispute.
"In my considered view, that conclusion is not borne out from the arbitral record. The very foundation for invoking deemed service is absent. Where the record itself reveals repeated failures of service, unexplained references to an unidentified “second address”, and no proof whatsoever of actual communication reaching the Appellants, the deeming provisions under Section 3 cannot be mechanically invoked to cure the defect.", the court ruled.
Case Title : Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited v. Afcons Gunanusa Joint Venture
Case Number : Commercial Arbitration Petition (L) No. 20173 of 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 392
The Bombay High Court has recently held that a corporate guarantee cannot replace an unconditional bank guarantee agreed between commercial parties merely because a party is willing to furnish one, observing that the two provide different degrees of security.
Granting interim relief to Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. (ONGC), Justice Amit Borkar directed Afcons Gunanusa Joint Venture to renew and continue unconditional bank guarantees worth USD 29.91 million, EUR 4.55 million and ₹22.09 crore, furnished towards ONGC's liquidated damages claim, until ONGC's challenge to an arbitral award is finally decided.
Rejecting Afcons' offer to replace the bank guarantees with a corporate guarantee, a bench of justice Amit Borkar observed:
"At the same time, it cannot be ignored that a corporate guarantee and an unconditional Bank Guarantee issued by a nationalised bank are not the same. Both stand on different footing and give different degree of security. Therefore, merely because the respondent is willing to furnish a corporate guarantee, it may not become substitute for the security agreed between the parties."
Case Title : The Packshot (India) Private Limited vs Trent Limited
Case Number : ARBITRATION PETITION (L) NO. 10726 OF 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 380
On 7 July, the Bombay High Court held that allegations of misuse of confidential information, proprietary business methods and protected employees cannot, at the interim stage, justify a blanket injunction against a party's business activities and require adjudication before the arbitral tribunal on the basis of evidence.
Justice Amit Borkar partly allowed a Section 9 petition filed by The Packshot (India) Pvt Ltd and directed Trent Ltd, Tata's retail arm, to preserve records relating to its engagement with Yoshi Agency Pvt Ltd pending arbitration. However, the Bench declined Packshot's prayer for a blanket injunction restraining Trent from carrying on its business or using the disputed information. It observed:
"Pending commencement and conclusion of the arbitral proceedings, the Respondent shall preserve and maintain all documents, records and electronic data in its possession, custody or control relating to its engagement with Yoshi Agency Private Limited, including invoices, purchase orders, work orders, payment vouchers, ledger accounts, vendor onboarding records, internal approvals, statements of account, bank transaction records, emails, electronic communications and other documents which are relevant to the disputes raised in the present Petition."
Case Title : Hemant D. Shah HUF & Anr. v. Chittaranjan D. Shah HUF & Ors.
Case Number : Commercial Arbitration Application No. 184 of 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 372
The Bombay High Court has recently held that a non-signatory cannot be compelled to arbitrate merely because it is alleged to be claiming "through or under" a signatory to an arbitration agreement.
Emphasising that arbitration is founded on consent, the court observed, "Since consent forms the cornerstone of arbitration, a non-signatory cannot be forcibly made a 'party' to an arbitration agreement, as doing so would violate sacrosanct principles of privity of contract and party autonomy."
Justice Arun R. Pedneker delivered the judgment while partly allowing an application seeking appointment of an arbitrator in a family partnership dispute. The court referred the disputes between the original signatories to arbitration.
It, however, declined to refer Gayatri Sachin Shah and Sachin Trust, holding that they were not signatories to the 1985 partnership deed and did not fall within any recognised exception that could bind non-signatories to the arbitration agreement.
The court observed, "The person “claiming through or under” cannot be made a “party” to the arbitration agreement on its own terms, as it only stands in the shoes of original signatory party. The phrase “claiming through or under” has not been used either in Section 2(1)(h) or Section 7 of the Arbitration Act. This is so because those provisions are based on the concept of party autonomy and party independence, which requires the party to provide consent to submit their disputes to arbitration. On the contrary, a person claiming through or under a party to an arbitration agreement is merely standing in the shoes of original party to the extent that it is merely agitating the right of the original party to the arbitration agreement."
Case Title : Malaney Trading & Services LLP Versus Uzer Makina VE Kalip Sanayi A.S.
Case Number : COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 228 OF 2022
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 373
The Bombay High Court has recently held that the availability of emergency or interim relief under the rules of a foreign arbitral institution does not, by itself, prevent Indian courts from granting interim protection in support of a foreign-seated arbitration.
It observed that merely choosing institutional rules that provide for emergency measures is not enough to exclude the court's jurisdiction.
Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan made the ruling while directing Turkish company Uzer Makina VE Kalip Sanayi A.S. to furnish additional security. The court ordered that the total amount secured before it should equal the Indian rupee equivalent of EUR 1.2 million in a dispute with Malaney Trading & Services LLP.
The court held, "In my opinion, for an implied ouster of Section from the foreign arbitration, the arbitration agreement must contain an ouster of Section 9. Ouster of jurisdiction must be express one were to take it to a standard of ouster by necessary implication, it wouldnot suffice to state that the rules of arbitration of the international arbitration institution contains a framework for interlocutory relief. Unless such rules provide for an ouster of any other means of interim relief, it would not be logical, or even commercially commonsensical to conclude that there is an ouster by necessary implication, merely by having agreed to arbitrate in an institute that also provides for emergency and interlocutory measures"
Case Title : N. Mehta Infra Realty LLP v. Deepa Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. & Ors.
Case Number : Commercial Arbitration Petition (L) No. 20310 of 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 386
The Bombay High Court has granted interim relief pending arbitration by directing three occupants of a co-operative housing society to vacate their premises within two weeks.
The court held that, in the facts of the case, the disputes raised by them could not justify delaying a redevelopment project after 15 of the society's 17 members had already executed the redevelopment documents and the necessary municipal approvals had been obtained.
Justice Amit Borkar observed, “Delay by only a few members may not remain confined to their own premises. It may affect the rights and expectations of all remaining members and may also cause financial difficulties and uncertainty to the entire redevelopment project.”
Case Title : Jaycee Homes Private Limited v. Kurla Moon Rock Municipal Employee Cooperative Housing Society Limited
Case Number : Arbitration Petition No. 106 of 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 389
The Bombay High Court has refused to grant interim relief to Jaycee Homes Private Limited in its plea to restrain Kurla Moon Rock Municipal Employee Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. from appointing another developer and to appoint a Court Receiver over the society's property.
It held that obtaining municipal approvals under a registered development agreement, by itself, does not establish that a developer was ready and willing to perform its contractual obligations.
Justice Amit Borkar observed, "Except obtaining the municipal approvals, no material is pointed out to show that the petitioner was in a position to commence the work. Merely obtaining approvals may not establish that the petitioner remained ready and willing to perform its obligations under the agreement."
Bombay High Court Upholds ₹86.02 Lakh Award Against CDSL Says Depositories Cannot Avoid Liability
Case Title : Central Depository Services (India) Ltd. v. Daksha Narendra Bhavsar & Anr.
Case Number : Commercial Arbitration Appeal (L) No. 41571 of 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 385
The Bombay High Court on 2 July held that a depository cannot escape liability for loss caused to an investor due to negligence by its depository participant by claiming that the participant became the beneficial owner of the securities after transfer.
A Division Bench of Justices Bharati Dangre and Manjusha Deshpande upheld an arbitral award directing Central Depository Services (India) Ltd. (CDSL) to pay Rs. 86.02 lakh with 9% post award interest to investor Daksha Bhavsar. The judges observed:
“The liability under Section 16 of the Depositories Act to indemnify the beneficial owner is absolute, once a negligent act by Depository Participant is established and it is open for the Appellant as Depository to recover the said amount from the Participant as per its own bye-laws.”
Case Title : Antariksh Realtors Private Limited vs The Vidyavihar Palmview Coop. Housing Society Limited & Ors
Case Number : COMM ARBITRATION PETITION (L) NO.19179 OF 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 374
The Bombay High Court has held that the absence of a bank guarantee under the Maharashtra government's redevelopment guidelines, by itself, cannot invalidate a housing society redevelopment project or justify refusing interim relief under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Holding so, the court observed, "Once this Court has already held that furnishing of bank guarantee under the Government Resolution is recommendatory and not mandatory, mere absence of a bank guarantee cannot make the redevelopment process invalid."
Justice Amit Borkar passed the order on July 7 while allowing a petition filed by Antariksh Realtors Pvt Ltd seeking interim relief under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The dispute concerned the redevelopment of Vidyavihar Palmview Co-operative Housing Society.
The court further observed, "Whether such security is sufficient or not is a matter which may arise between the Society and the developer. That issue cannot be a ground to refuse interim protection under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act."
Telangana High Court
Case Title : OWH SE i.L. v. United Company RUSAL International P.J.S.C. & Ors.
Case Number : EXEP No. 1 of 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (TEL) 45
The Telangana High Court has recently dismissed an execution petition filed by German company OWH SE i.L. seeking enforcement of London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA) awards against Russian aluminium producer United Company RUSAL International P.J.S.C. (RUSAL) and its subsidiaries. The court held that it lacked territorial jurisdiction to entertain the petition.
The court stayed the operation of its judgment until June 2, 2026, to enable OWH to prefer an appeal.
While doing so, Justice T. Madhavi Devi held that Qatar-based AL Plus Holding LLC and Russia-based International Limited Liability Company Gershvin LLC, subsidiaries of RUSAL, could be impleaded in the execution proceedings.
The bench observed, "It is clear that third parties also can be made parties to the enforcement of Arbitral Awards provided it is proved that the funds/shares/assets have been transferred in order to avoid enforcement of the Arbitral Tribunal Awards. Thus, in order to verify whether R2 and R3 are alter egos of R1, it is necessary to pierce the corporate veil to find out whether the companies have been formed/created for diversion of the assets of R1 only or whether the assets of R1 have been diverted to R3 and in turn to R2 to evade the enforcement of arbitral proceedings has to be seen."
Case Title KPB Consumers vs. Swmabhan Commerce Private Limited
Case Number COMMERCIAL COURT APPEAL No.21 OF 2026
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC (TEL) 42
The Telangana High Court has recently held that an award-holder can invoke Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act to seek interim protection until an arbitral award is actually enforced. The remedy remains available even after the award becomes enforceable.
A Division Bench of Justices Moushumi Bhattacharya and Gadi Praveen Kumar ruled that the expression "before it is enforced" in Section 9 refers to the completion of enforcement proceedings. It cannot be equated with the stage when an award merely becomes enforceable.
"Section 9(1) provides a straightforward answer by the words 'before it is enforced' as opposed to 'the award becomes enforceable' (absent in the provision). Hence, from a purely grammatical point of view, the word 'enforced' would mean completion or culmination of the enforcement proceedings. The finality attached to the word 'enforced' is unmistakable; there is no further recourse for enforcement of the Award. On the other hand, 'enforceable' would mean a process in continuum which is devoid either of finality or a conclusive enforcement of the arbitral Award.", the court held.
Kerala High Court
Case Title : Bharat Sursingh Asher and Ors v. Rupa Praveen Asher
Case Number : AR No. 292 of 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(KER) 123
The Kerala High Court has recently held that, for the purpose of arbitration requests filed under the Kerala High Court Scheme for Appointment of Arbitrators, 1996, a "duly certified copy" of a private arbitration agreement does not have to be certified by a public authority.
It held that the requirement is satisfied where the party files an affidavit certifying the copy as a true copy of the original, explains why the original has not been produced, and submits a copy attested to by the party or its counsel.
Justice S. Manu delivered the ruling while allowing an arbitration request filed by Bharat Sursingh Asher, Rajesh Girdhardas Asher and Hemangi B. Asher. They sought the appointment of arbitrators to resolve disputes relating to the partnership firm, Jairam and Sons.
"In such situations there cannot be any certification of a copy of the agreement by a public authority. Therefore, the expression 'duly certified copy thereof' employed in paragraph 2(1)(a) of the Scheme, in the case of private agreements, can only mean copies duly attested by the parties to the agreement or their counsel.", the court held.
Madras High Court
Registered Mortgage Does Not Bar Arbitration In Simple Money Recovery Claims: Madras High Court
Case Title : Marsalin & Anr. v. M/s Shriram City Union Finance Limited
Case Number : Arb. Appeal (MD) No. 59 of 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 174
The Madras High Court on 1 July held that a simple money recovery claim is arbitrable even if the underlying loan transaction is secured by a registered mortgage deed, provided the lender does not seek enforcement, foreclosure or sale of the mortgaged property.
Justice S. Sounthar dismissed an appeal filed by borrowers Marsalin and Mary Rani Subi, upheld an arbitral award directing them to pay Rs. 15,70,637 to Shriram City Union Finance Limited, and affirmed the Principal District Judge, Tirunelveli's order refusing to set aside the award.
Drawing a distinction between a money recovery claim and enforcement of mortgage rights, the Bench observed:
“In cases, where the claim is filed seeking recovery of money, the mortgage deed entered between the parties can be relied on for the purpose of proving the loan transaction. Merely because, the mortgage deed entered between the parties were marked as evidence of loan transactions, the claim cannot be treated as the one for enforcement of mortgage. The award passed by the sole Arbitrator at the most can only be treated as award for money against the person of the appellant and it is not an award against the property.”
Calcutta High Court
Case Title : Steel Authority of India Limited (IISCO Steel Plant) v. Balaji Industrial Products Limited
Case Number : AO COM/21/2026 with AP No. 1097 of 2013 (Old No. APO/65/2024)
Citation :2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 169
The Calcutta High Court has upheld an arbitral award directing Steel Authority of India Limited (IISCO Steel Plant) to pay more than ₹2.05 crore to Balaji Industrial Products Limited.
The court found no ground to interfere with the arbitrator's conclusion that SAIL had wrongfully terminated a contract for the supply of 60,000 metric tonnes of iron ore.
A division bench of Justices Debangsu Basak and Md. Shabbar Rashidi held that the arbitrator's findings represented a plausible view of the evidence and disclosed no perversity or patent illegality.
Observing that the contract imposed reciprocal obligations on both parties, the court held,
"The contract between the parties had reciprocal obligations. Appellant had the obligations to provide 60,000 metric tonnes of materials to the respondent. Appellant had the responsibility of having 60,000 metric tonnes of materials ready for delivery and uplift within 90 days from the date of the first payment. The quantity of materials promised by the appellant as ready for delivery was not available for delivery in view of the situation prevailing at the concerned mines."
Calcutta High Court Upholds Arbitral Award Against Neo Metaliks In Lam Coke Supply Contract Dispute
Case Title : Neo Metaliks Limited Vs. Orrisa Metaliks Private Limited
Case Number : AO-COM No. 11 of 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 168
The Calcutta High Court has upheld an arbitral award in favour of Orissa Metaliks Pvt Ltd, dismissing Neo Metaliks Ltd's appeal arising from a dispute over a Lam Coke supply contract. The court found no perversity or patent illegality in either the arbitral award or the earlier judgment refusing to set it aside.
A Division Bench of Justices Debangsu Basak and Md. Shabbar Rashidi upheld the arbitral award and affirmed the Single Judge's judgment of January 6, 2025. The Court said that the award was reasoned, considered the parties' contentions, and could not be termed perverse.
"Likewise, the learned Single Judge dealt with the contentions raised before it in the impugned judgment and order dated January 6, 2025. Appellant did not establish the impugned judgment and order dated January 6, 2025 to be perverse. The appellant did not establish the award dated October 16, 2023 to suffer from any patent illegality.", the court ruled.