LiveLawBiz Arbitration Cases Weekly Digest: June 1 - June 6, 2026
Shivani PS
8 Jun 2026 5:18 PM IST
NOMINAL INDEX
National Highways Authority of India v. T. Younis & Anr., 2026 LLBiz SC 216
Bennett Coleman and Company Limited v. Lord's Mark Industries Limited & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 583
Ramacivil India Construction Private Limited v. Central Public Works Department & Connected Matters, 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 575
Midpoint Commodeal Private Limited v. Fidatocity Homes Private Limited & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 580
Oracle International Corporation v. CIS IT Solutions Private Limited, 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 564
MWC Market Services Private Limited v. State of Manipur & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC (MAN) 2
Union of India v. V.S. Saini, 2026 LLBiz HC (RAJ) 27
Amar India Private Limited v. Union of India & Others, 2026 LLBiz HC (MP) 39
Aurionpro Solutions Limited v. Madhya Pradesh Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, Bhopal & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC (MP) 38
Ashok Kumar Rakesh Kumar v. Andhra Pradesh Foods, Hyderabad & Others, 2026 LLBiz HC (TEL) 33
Purushothaman Thitta v. Pothan Rajan & Anr., 2026 LLBiz HC (KER) 82
Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited v. Ganesh Rice Mills & Connected Matters, 2026 LLBiz HC (PNH) 29
Vapi Municipal Corporation (Erstwhile Vapi Nagarpalika) v. Shashijit Infra Projects Limited & Anr., 2026 LLBiz HC (GUJ) 67
Automotive Axles Employees Housing Co-operative Society Limited v. Sri K.S. Sridhar, 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 77
D. Arun Reddy & Anr. v. Late Muni Reddy & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 74
Meenakshi v. NHAI, 2026 LLBiz HC (HP) 23
Gali Radha Bhagya Lakshmi v. Sree Constructions & Anr., 2026 LLBiz HC (APH) 42
Hindustan Dorr-Oliver Limited v. Uranium Corporation of India Limited, 2026 LLBiz HC (JHAR) 11
Supreme Court
Case Title: National Highways Authority of India vs T Younis & Anr.
Case Number: SLP (C) NO. 7570 OF 2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz SC 216
The Supreme Court on Tuesday held that when parties invoke post-award proceedings before an arbitral tribunal seeking correction, interpretation, or an additional award, the limitation period for challenging the arbitral award begins only after those proceedings are disposed of.
The court observed that parties cannot be compelled to challenge an award while such proceedings remain pending before the tribunal.
A bench of Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Alok Aradhe allowed an appeal filed by the National Highway Authority of India (NHAI) and set aside a January 22, 2024 judgment of the Karnataka High Court.
It restored an August 5, 2023 order of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ballari, which had condoned the delay in filing NHAI's challenge to an arbitral award.
The bench ruled, “Once proceedings under Section 33 are initiated and entertained by the Arbitral Tribunal, the award remains subject to the limited jurisdiction of the tribunal for correction, interpretation, or supplementation as contemplated under the provision. So long as such proceedings remain pending, the parties cannot be compelled to institute proceedings under Section 34 merely as a matter of abundant caution. The parties can effectively pursue their remedy under Section 34 only upon conclusion of the proceedings under Section 33. Consequently, the limitation prescribed under Section 34(3) can start only from the date on which the proceedings under Section 33 are disposed of.”
HIIGH COURTS
Delhi High Court
Bennett Coleman Withdraws Delhi HC Plea Against Lord's Mark Share Listing Following Settlement
Case Title: Bennett Coleman and Co. Ltd. v. Lord's Mark Industries Limited & Ors.
Case Number : O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 241/2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 583
Bennett Coleman and Co. Ltd. (BCCL), publisher of The Times of India, has withdrawn its petition before the Delhi High Court challenging the proposed listing and commencement of trading of shares of Lord's Mark Industries Ltd.
The withdrawal came after Lord's Mark acknowledged BCCL's entitlement to 10,28,483 equity shares and agreed to place its claim before the Monitoring Committee supervising implementation of the resolution plan through which Kratos Energy and Infrastructure Ltd. was merged with Lord's Mark
Justice Amit Sharma permitted withdrawal of the petition after Lord's Mark Industries placed on record a communication dated May 30, 2026 recording the understanding reached between the parties.
In the communication, Lord's Mark stated:
“LMIL now confirms and acknowledges the entitlement BCCL to 10,28,483 equity shares in the resulting Company LMIL in pursue of warrant conversion notice at agreed value of Rs. 158/- (Rupees Hundred Fifty Eight Only).”
Case Title: M/s Ramacivil India Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. Central Public Works Department & Connected Matters
Case Number : ARB.P. 1787/2025 with O.M.P.(I)(COMM.) 35/2025, O.M.P.(I)(COMM.) 447/2025 and O.M.P.(I)(COMM.) 484/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 575
The Delhi High Court has reiterated that arbitration is founded on consent and party autonomy, holding that an entity cannot be impleaded in arbitral proceedings merely because it is the ultimate beneficiary of a project.
The Court set aside orders that had added IIM Jammu as a party to arbitration-related proceedings arising from disputes between Ramacivil India Construction Pvt. Ltd. and the Central Public Works Department (CPWD) over construction of the permanent campus of IIM Jammu at Jagti, Jammu.
Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar held that IIM Jammu was not a signatory to the contract or the arbitration agreement between Ramacivil and CPWD. The Court held that the circumstances relied upon by IIM Jammu, including its status as the ultimate beneficiary, its funding of the project and its participation in review meetings and supervision of the works, did not justify its impleadment.
The Court observed: “This Court is unable to accept that the status of an 'ultimate beneficiary' can constitute the governing test for impleadment in arbitral proceedings. Arbitration, being fundamentally consensual in nature, cannot be enlarged to include entities merely because they derive a benefit or possess an institutional interest in the project.”
Draft Agreements, WhatsApp Chats Alone Cannot Create Binding Arbitration Agreement: Delhi High Court
Case Title : Midpoint Commodeal Private Limited v. Fidatocity Homes Private Limited & Ors.
Case Number : O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 30/2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 580
The Delhi High Court has held that draft agreements, WhatsApp exchanges and prolonged commercial negotiations cannot, by themselves, create a binding arbitration agreement unless the parties have clearly and finally agreed on all essential terms of their arrangement.
A Bench of Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar dismissed a petition filed by Midpoint Commodeal Private Limited seeking protection of ₹15.30 crore allegedly invested in the "Sky Palazzos" real estate project in Gurugram.
“Mere negotiations, exchanged communications, draft agreements, tentative proposals, preliminary understandings, or ongoing commercial discussions may at best indicate an intention to negotiate or explore a prospective business relationship; however, such circumstances do not, by themselves, mature into a legally enforceable contract unless the parties demonstrably arrive at a final, unequivocal, and binding meeting of minds on all essential terms of the arrangement,” the Court observed.
The Court further observed, “Similarly, the WhatsApp exchanges and other communications relied upon by the Petitioner do not establish any unequivocal assent or concluded agreement between the parties. At best, the said communications reflect ongoing commercial negotiations and attempts to arrive at mutually acceptable terms. They do not disclose any final consensus on the essential contractual terms, much less any clear and binding agreement to arbitrate disputes.”
Delhi High Court Rejects Oracle's Challenge To Award Refusing Transfer Of 'Exadata.in' Domain
Case Title : Oracle International Corporation v. CIS IT Solutions Pvt Ltd
Case Number: O.M.P. (COMM) 232/2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 564
The Delhi High Court has refused to interfere with an arbitral award rejecting Oracle International Corporation's bid to secure the transfer of the domain name “www.exadata.in”. The court held that the arbitrator had arrived at a plausible factual conclusion that the threshold necessary for establishing bad-faith registration or use under the .IN Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (INDRP) had not been met.
Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar held that similarity between Oracle's registered “EXADATA” trademark and the disputed domain name was not, by itself, sufficient to justify the transfer of the domain name.
“The inquiry envisaged under the INDRP framework is, therefore, neither singular nor mechanical in nature, but is inherently contextual, fact-sensitive, and dependent upon an overall evaluation of the surrounding circumstances and evidentiary material placed on record.”, the court observed.
Manipur High Court
Case Title : MWC Market Services Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Manipur & Ors.
Case Number : Arbitration Appeal No. 1 of 2022 with MC(ARB.A.) No. 1 of 2022
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (MAN) 2
The Manipur High Court on 30 May held that compensation under a liquidated damages clause cannot be awarded without evidence of actual loss where such loss is capable of proof, and partly set aside an arbitral award arising from a dispute over delayed commencement of online lottery draws.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice M. Sundar and Justice A. Bimol Singh partly allowed MWC Market Services Pvt. Ltd.'s appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, setting aside the award of Rs. 10 crore in damages in favour of the State of Manipur while upholding the award of Rs. 19.48 lakh towards additional infrastructure costs. The judges held:
“The award of liquidated damages to the tune of ₹10 crores qua a claim of ₹35 crores without any evidence much less proof by adopting not even a rough and ready approximation approach but fixing it at ₹10 crores without any basis is clearly a patent illegality which goes to the root of the matter.”
Rajasthan High Court
Case Title: Union of India v V.S. Saini
Case Number: S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2109/2007, S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2110/2007
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(RAJ) 27
The Rajasthan High Court has held that where a contract contains an ambiguous term and the arbitrator adopts a plausible interpretation of that term, such interpretation does not amount to misconduct under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act, 1940.
Justice Sandeep Shah upheld an arbitral award passed nearly two decades ago against the Union of India (UOI) in a dispute arising from fencing work along the Indo-Pak border and affirmed the arbitral award as well as the order of the District Judge, Sri Ganganagar refusing to set it aside. He held:
“When the terms of the contract are capable of more than one interpretation and the learned Arbitrator has adopted one of the possible and plausible interpretations, the same by itself cannot be a ground for interference with the award in question under Section 30 of the Act of 1940.”
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Case Title: Amar India Pvt. Ltd. v Union of India and Others
Case Number: AC No. 55 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(MP) 39
The Indore Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court on 4 May appointed an arbitrator in a dispute between Western Railway and a service provider after rejecting the Railway's contention that the dispute was non-arbitrable, holding that claims for payment of dues for work already executed fall outside the “excepted matters” under the contract.
Justice Pavan Kumar Dwivedi allowed the petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, observing:
“In view of the above analysis of the facts of the present case and the relevant clauses of the GCC this Court is of the view that the issue of payment of dues as sought to be referred to arbitral tribunal by the applicant is not covered under the excepted matters thus the same is arbitrable.”
Case Title : Aurionpro Solutions Ltd. v. Madhya Pradesh Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, Bhopal & Ors.
Case Number : W.P. No. 2350 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(MP) 38
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that conciliation under the MSMED Act cannot be reduced to an “eyewash”, while setting aside an award passed by the Madhya Pradesh Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council against Aurionpro Solutions Ltd.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Vinay Saraf held that the Council could not proceed to arbitration without first conducting and terminating conciliation proceedings in the manner prescribed by law.
Observing that conciliation has statutory recognition and that the conciliator is required to assist the parties in an independent and fair manner, the Bench observed:
“The manner of conducting conciliation and even the role to be played by the conciliator to assist the parties in an independent and fair manner to arrive at a settlement has been statutorily proscribed. There is a legal sanctity attached the entire process of conciliation. It can not be made a mere eyewash as has been done in the present case.”
Telangana High Court
Case Title : M/s Ashok Kumar Rakesh Kumar v M/s Andhra Pradesh Foods, Hyderabad and Others
Case Number: C.M.A No. 715 of 2005
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (TEL) 33
The Telangana High Court on 4 May held that where a contract expressly provides for forfeiture of security and recovery of differential costs, the aggrieved party may invoke both remedies upon breach.
A Division Bench of Justices Moushumi Bhattacharya and Gadi Praveen Kumar dismissed the appeal filed by Ashok Rakesh Kumar and upheld an arbitral award in favour of the A.P. Nutrition Council (APNC), finding no patent illegality in the Tribunal granting both forms of relief. The judges held:
“The appellant contended that the procurement of sugar amounts to unilateral modification of the contract but the material on record clearly shows that the purchase of sugar was a temporary measure, necessitated by the failure of the appellant to supply jaggery powder and was essential to ensure uninterrupted implementation of a public welfare programme.”
Kerala High Court
Disputes On Corporate Restructuring Must Be Decided by NCLT, Not Arbitrator: Kerala High Court
Case Title : Purushothaman Thitta v. Pothan Rajan and Anr
Case Number: OP(C) No. 2308 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(KER) 82
On 1 June 2026, the Kerala High Court held that disputes involving corporate restructuring and division of company assets fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) and are non-arbitrable.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Easwaran S allowed the petition challenging an arbitral ruling that had rejected a jurisdictional objection under Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. He observed:
“Albeit, this Courts finds that the dispute before the arbitrator qua the companies is essentially an intra- company dispute. Pertinently, the company is not a signatory to the MOU, whereas it is between two brothers. Moreover, the presences of a specialized statutory form like National Company Tribunal which is given exclusive power to adjudicate on the dispute touching upon the structure of the company and the rights of a minority shareholder, is a clear indication that the subject matter of the dispute is non- arbitrable.”
Punjab & Haryana High Court
Case Title: Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited v. M/s Ganesh Rice Mills and connected matters
Case Number: CR-5847-2025 (O&M) and connected matters
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (PNH) 29
On 29 May, the Punjab and Haryana High Court held that executing courts cannot retrospectively apply the post-2015 neutrality regime under Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to refuse enforcement of arbitral awards rendered under the law prevailing at the time of the arbitrator's appointment.
A Bench of Justice Jasgurpreet Singh Puri allowed the revision petitions, set aside seven executing court orders, and directed continuation of execution proceedings. It observed:
“Once the award has been passed by an Arbitrator who was eligible to pass the same in view of the law as it stood at the time of his appointment, it is well settled that the learned Executing Court at the time of execution of such an award cannot go behind the same to apply the provisions of the 2015 Amendment Act retrospectively and is bound to execute it as it is.”
Gujarat High Court
Gujarat High Court Temporarily Halts Arbitration Over Vapi Lakes Lease Agreements
Case Title : Vapi Municipal Corporation (Erstwhile Vapi Nagarpalika) v. Shashijit Infra Projects Limited & Anr.
Case Number: R/Special Civil Application Nos. 7763 of 2026, 7765 of 2026 and 7766 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(GUJ) 67
The Gujarat High Court on Monday directed that no further proceedings be conducted in arbitration proceedings between Vapi Municipal Corporation and Shashijit Infra Projects Limited arising from lease agreements relating to Lakhamdev Lake, Dungra Lake, and Chala Lake in Vapi. The direction will remain in force until the next hearing before the Court on June 18.
Justice L.S. Pirzada passed the order while issuing notice in petitions filed by the Municipal Corporation challenging the continuation of the arbitration proceedings.
The court observed,
"As Special Civil Application no. 157 of 2026 is pending before this Court and the Civil Application no. 1 of 2026 in Special Civil Application no. 130 of 2026 moved by the respondent no. 1 is also pending and the next date of hearing is fixed on 18.06.2026, the respondent no. 2 may not proceed with the arbitration proceedings and not pass any order till the next date of hearing."
Karnataka High Court
Case Title : AUTOMOTIVE AXLES vs SRI K.S. SRIDHAR
Case Number : COMMERCIAL APPEAL NO.391 OF 2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 77
The Karnataka High Court on 1 June, partly set aside an arbitral award of Rs.79.58 lakh in favour of contractor K.S. Sridhar, holding that several claims allowed by the arbitrator lacked evidentiary support and were patently illegal.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C.M. Poonacha partly allowed the appeal filed by Automotive Axles Employees Housing Co-operative Society Ltd., modifying the arbitral award while sustaining certain monetary components in favour of the contractor. The judges observed:
“In view of the aforementioned, the award of the Tribunal on claim Nos.2, 3 and 6 are patently illegal and are accordingly set aside. The award of the Tribunal on claim Nos.1, 4 and 5 are not interfered with. The above appeal is partly allowed in the aforementioned terms.”
Case Title : D. Arun Reddy & Anr. v. Late Muni Reddy & Ors.
Case Number : W.P. No.3571 of 2023 (GM-CPC)
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(KAR) 74
The Karnataka High Court has recently held that a dispute arising out of a Joint Development Agreement for a residential apartment project in Bengaluru was not a commercial dispute and could not be entertained by a Commercial Court, while setting aside an order that had assumed jurisdiction over a challenge to an arbitral award.
Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju observed, “the property in dispute, which was developed pursuant to the JDA, cannot be said to be immovable property used exclusively in trade or commerce within the meaning of Section 2(1)(c)(vii) of the CC Act. The dispute pertains to development and allocation of residential apartments. Both parties are individuals and share the redeveloped flats and area as re-constructed. There is no material to indicate that the property was actually used for trade or commerce. Consequently, Section 2(1)(c)(vii) of the CC Act would not be attracted to the facts of the present case.”
Himachal Pradesh High Court
Consent Under Section 29A(3) Can Be Inferred From Conduct Of Parties: Himachal Pradesh High Court
Case Title: Meenakshi v NHAI
Case Number :Arb. Appeal 3 and 7 of 2022
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(HP)23
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that Section 29A(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 does not require parties to give written consent for extending the time limit to make an arbitral award. Consent may be inferred from the conduct of the parties.
A Bench of Justice Virender Singh allowed the appeals filed by landowners Meenakshi and Chaman Lal, set aside the District Judge's order annulling the arbitral award, and remanded the matter for consideration of the Section 34 challenge on merits. The judges held:
“The learned District Judge, in the judgment impugned herein, has adopted a hyper-technical approach while holding that 'consent', as used by the Legislature, in its wisdom, in Section 29A(3) of the Act has to be express and after being aware of the statutory provision.”
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Arbitral Mandate Can Be Extended After Expiry; No Limitation Prescribed: Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case Title: Gali Radha Bhagya Lakshmi v. Sree Constructions & Anr.
Case Number: Civil Revision Petition No. 84 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(APH) 42
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has recently reiterated that applications seeking extension of an arbitral tribunal's mandate can be filed even after expiry of the prescribed period and that courts must adopt a liberal approach while considering whether sufficient cause exists for granting such extensions.
Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Rohan Builders (India) Private Limited v. Berger Paints India Limited and its own earlier ruling in Chidepudi Bhanu Srivastava v. Kancharla Subrahmanyam, a Division Bench of Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Balaji Medamalli held:
"it is settled position in law that the application for extension of time for Arbitral Mandate under Section 29A of the Act, 1996 can be filed before the expiry of the period of mandate and also thereafter and the court has to record sufficient reasons for extension of the mandate as to why Arbitral Award could not be made within the mandated period. It is also settled that 'sufficient cause' has to be construed liberally so as to enable to give the mandate."
Jharkhand High Court
Case Title: Hindustan Dorr-Oliver Limited vs Uranium Corporation of India Limited
Case Number: Arbitration Application No. 3 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (JHAR) 11
The Jharkhand High Court on 8 May held that while exercising jurisdiction under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, a referral court is required to undertake only a prima facie examination of the existence of an arbitration agreement and cannot enter into disputed questions relating to limitation, maintainability or the effect of insolvency proceedings.
Chief Justice M.S. Sonak appointed former Andhra Pradesh High Court Judge Justice C. Praveen Kumar as the sole arbitrator to adjudicate disputes between Hindustan Dorr-Oliver Ltd. (HDOL) and Uranium Corporation of India Ltd. (UCIL) arising out of a contract dated 20 March 2009, while leaving all objections raised by UCIL open for consideration by the Arbitral Tribunal. The Bench observed:
“The Hon'ble Supreme Court pointed out that Section 11(6-A) uses the expression "examination of the existence of an arbitration agreement". The purport of using the word "examination" connotes that the legislature intends that the Referral Court has to inspect or scrutinise the dealings between the parties for the existence of an arbitration agreement. Moreover, the expression "examination" does not connote or imply a laborious or contested inquiry.”