LiveLawBiz Arbitration Cases Weekly Digest: May 11 - May 16, 2026
Shivani PS
18 May 2026 10:30 AM IST
Nominal Index
Hirani Developers v. Nehru Nagar Samruddhi CHS Ltd. and Another Etc., 2026 LLBiz SC 188
Ram Avatar Agrawal Road Construction Private Limited Now Known As SPA Paving Projects Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2026 LLBiz SC 187
Ucon PT Structural System Private Limited & Anr. vs Utracon Corporation Pte Ltd. & Ors., 2026 LLBiz SC 184
M/s National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd. v. M/s Tarapore & Co., Engineers & Contractors & connected matter Tarapore & Company v. M/s National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd., 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 488
Jiostar India Pvt. Ltd. v. Ms Absolute Legends Sports Private Limited & Anr., 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 487
Goyal MG Gases Pvt. Ltd. v. Classic Motors Pvt. Ltd., 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 490
Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. v. GYT TPL Joint Venture, 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 489
U.P. Infraestate Pvt. Ltd. Through Liquidator Devinder Arora v. Rivaj Infratech Private Limited & Anr., 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 486
Eureka Forbes Limited v. Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation, 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 500
Akash Katyal & Anr. v. PhysicsWallah Ltd. & Anr., 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 499
M/s Ramprastha Promoters Developers Pvt Ltd v. M/s Rhine Power Pvt Ltd, 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 485
Sterlite Technologies Ltd. v. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 482
Sapphire Media Limited v. NBCC Services Limited & Anr., 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 481
Orix Corporation India Ltd. v. Peters Surgical India Pvt. Ltd., 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 478
Onedigital Entertainment Pte Ltd. v. Prajakta Koli, 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 295
The President of India through Chief Engineer (Construction)/CPM/NGP Central Railway v. KEC International Ltd., 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 296
Vardhaman Builders v. Narendra Balasaheb Ghatge and Anr., 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 290
Ajazul Haque Khan v. ICICI Bank Limited, 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 297
L and T Finance Limited vs Amina Fuels and Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 119
SREI Infrastructure Finance Limited & Anr. v. Orissa Steel Expressway Private Limited, 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 113
Tata Steel Limited v. MSP Sponge Iron Limited, 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 112
Malathy Constructions v. Bridge and Roof Co. India Ltd., 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 114
Kirloskar Pneumatic Company Limited v. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited, 2026 LLBiz HC(GUJ) 64
L&T Himachal Hydro Power Limited v. Government of Himachal Pradesh and Another, 2026 LLBiz HC (HP) 15
Sushil Kumar Prajapati v. Union of India and 3 others, 2026 LLBiz HC (ALL) 39
Shri Krishna Nutriton India Pvt Ltd v. The Micro Small and Medium Enterprises and another, 2026 LLBiz HC (ALL) 38
Kanta Devi v. Union of India & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC (JAM) 16
SRP: Minerals Pvt Ltd vs Union of India & Ors, 2026 LLBiz HC (TEL) 31
M/s Pahwa Impex Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s Kanuj Home Textiles Exim, 2026 LLBiz HC (PNH) 25
Supreme Court
Case Title: Hirani Developers v. Nehru Nagar Samruddhi CHS Ltd. and Another Etc.
Case Number : SLP (C) Nos. 38407-38411 of 2025
Citation :2026 LLBiz SC 188
The Supreme Court has recently referred a redevelopment dispute between a developer and five members of a co-operative housing society to arbitration, holding that an arbitration clause in an earlier development agreement became binding through later accommodation agreements that adopted all its terms.
"This was, thus, not a case of mere reference to an earlier agreement but a case where the parties to the later contract clearly intended to import the Development Agreement, body and soul, into the later agreements," the Court held.
A Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran set aside a Bombay High Court order that had refused to appoint an arbitrator, holding that the later agreements clearly incorporated the arbitration clause contained in the original development agreement.
Case Title: Ram Avatar Agrawal Road Construction Private Limited Now Known As SPA Paving Projects Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Chhattisgarh
Case Number : Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 15430 of 2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz SC 187
The Supreme Court has recently held that where a court has already conclusively ruled in proceedings under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 that arbitration is maintainable and that finding has attained finality, the issue cannot be reopened later in a Section 37 challenge to the arbitral award.
“When the Courts have ruled on the fact that application under Section 11 of the Act was maintainable and when such a decision has attained finality, revisiting the issue of maintainability and setting aside the award on the ground of jurisdictional error is incorrect.”, the top court ruled.
Applying the principle of res judicata, Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe set aside a judgment of the Chhattisgarh High Court which had invalidated the arbitral proceedings by reopening the issue of maintainability despite earlier judicial orders, including the Supreme Court's 2008 decision.
“The conclusion of the High Court that the earlier judgments are not res judicata is not correct in our opinion.”, it noted.
Supreme Court Appoints Arbitrator In Ucon-Utracon Dispute Over 'Utracon' Brand Use, Share Sale Pact
Case Title : M/S UCON PT STRUCTURAL SYSTEM PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR. vs UTRACON CORPORATION PTE LTD. & ORS.
Case Number : ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 13 OF 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz SC 184
The Supreme Court on April 30 appointed former Punjab and Haryana High Court judge Justice K. Kannan as sole arbitrator to resolve a dispute between Chennai-based Ucon PT Structural System Pvt. Ltd. and Singapore-based Utracon entities over an alleged breach of a 2012 share sale agreement.
A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi said objections relating to limitation, arbitrability, and the scope of the arbitration clause would be decided by the arbitral tribunal, not at the stage of appointing an arbitrator.
“Keeping in view the above facts and circumstances and the relevant provisions under the subject agreement, especially the fact that the arbitration is to take place in Chennai, India and that it would be procedurally governed by the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, we deem it just and proper to appoint an arbitrator of Indian origin. Hence, the instant Arbitration Petition is allowed, and Justice K. Kannan, former Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, is appointed as the sole arbitrator to resolve the disputes between the parties.”
Delhi High Court
Case Title: M/s National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd. v. M/s Tarapore & Co., Engineers & Contractors & connected matter Tarapore & Company v. M/s National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd.
Case Number: OMP No. 408/2008 and CS (OS) No. 1499/2008
Citation :2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 488
The Delhi High Court has set aside an arbitral award directing Tarapore & Company to pay over ₹2.43 crore to National Thermal Power Corporation Limited in a dispute arising from the Farakka Super Thermal Power Project.
The court held that the arbitral process was vitiated by a reasonable apprehension of bias, as both the original and substitute arbitrators were serving NTPC officials, with the substitute arbitrator having been appointed by an interested NTPC official.
The Single Bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh noted that T. Shankarlingam, then a General Manager of NTPC, was initially appointed as arbitrator. After being elevated as Chairman and Managing Director of NTPC, he appointed another serving NTPC officer, G.J. Deshpande, as substitute arbitrator.
Case Title :JioStar India Pvt. Ltd. v. Ms Absolute Legends Sports Private Limited & Anr.
Case Number: O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 88/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 487
The Delhi High Court has referred disputes between JioStar India Pvt. Ltd. and Absolute Legends Sports Pvt. Ltd. over the media and commercial rights of the Legends League Cricket Masters T20 tournament to arbitration. It held that arbitral proceedings should not be unduly delayed once parties before the court agree to arbitrate.
Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar appointed Senior Advocate Kamal Nijhawan as sole arbitrator. The court also directed that franchise fee collections and ticket revenues shall not be dealt with pending arbitration.
“It is further directed that the amounts received towards franchise fee as well as ticket collections, as articulated in paragraph 11 of the Affidavit dated 04.04.2026, shall not be dealt with by the Respondents in any manner whatsoever and shall remain subject to further orders to be passed by the learned Arbitrator. ” the court said.
Delhi High Court Upholds Licence Fee In Goyal MG Gases Dispute, Says Conduct Affirms Contract
Case Title : Goyal MG Gases Pvt. Ltd. v. Classic Motors Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : FAO(OS)(COMM) 172/2020 and FAO(OS)(COMM) 23/2021
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 490
The Delhi High Court on 12 May dismissed the appeals filed by Classic Motors Pvt. Ltd., holding that its continued occupation of the premises and execution of a subsequent addendum amounted to clear affirmation of the contract, not rescission, and therefore it could not later seek reduction of the agreed licence fee on grounds of alleged misrepresentation.
A Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Amit Mahajan upheld the Single Judge's decision restoring the contractual licence fee payable to Goyal MG Gases Pvt. Ltd. It observed:
“once a contracting party, after discovering the alleged misrepresentation, elects to continue under the contract and even enters into a further arrangement (the Addendum) on the same footing, its conduct is consistent with affirmance of the contract rather than rescission.”
Case Title : Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. v. GYT TPL Joint Venture
Case Number :O.M.P. (COMM) 202/2021
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 489
The Delhi High Court has recently upheld an arbitral award requiring Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd (DMRC) to reimburse contractor GYT TPL Joint Venture towards ₹3.47 crore in Environmental Compensation Charges (ECC), GST-related burdens and other additional costs.
These arose during the execution of the Delhi Metro Phase III Dilshad Garden–New Bus Adda corridor project, including during the extended contract period.
Justice Subramonium Prasad held that the Environmental Compensation Charges imposed during construction pursuant to Supreme Court directions to control pollution were not ordinary “taxes”, “duties” or “levies” covered by Clause C2.6(c) of the contract. This clause barred adjustment of the contract price for changes in taxes, duties or levies, including introduction of new ones.
"Since ECC was not a tax or levy but an additional charge imposed by the Apex Court, the clause C2.6(c) could not have been applicable. The Petitioner has not demonstrated that the said clause unequivocally and unambiguously bars such a claim irrespective of the cause or timing of the imposition. The interpretation adopted is not so irrational or implausible asto warrant interference.," the Court observed.
Case Title: U.P. Infraestate Pvt. Ltd. Through Liquidator Devinder Arora v. Rivaj Infratech Private Limited & Anr.
Case Number : FAO(OS) (COMM) 133/2023
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 486
Arbitral proceedings, once terminated, cannot be terminated a second time, the Delhi High Court has held while ruling that a party cannot treat an arbitrator's refusal to recall an earlier termination order as a fresh termination capable of challenge as an arbitral award.
“Arbitral proceedings can be terminated only once and once terminated they cannot again be terminated a second time. The dismissal of the recall application could not, therefore, be treated as a second order terminating the arbitral proceedings again relatable to Section 25 of the 1996 Act. It was clearly an order which was refusing to recall the order terminating the arbitral proceedings.,” the court held.
Case Title : Eureka Forbes Limited v. Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation
Case Number : O.M.P. (COMM) 502/2024
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 500
The Delhi High Court has recently held that while a procedural direction to proceed ex parte in arbitration is not challengeable under Section 34 at that stage, the outright rejection of a counterclaim for non-appearance amounts to a final determination of substantive rights.
Setting aside the arbitral tribunal's rejection of Eureka Forbes Limited's counterclaim against Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation (IRCTC), the Court restored it for adjudication.
Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar observed, “An order directing that proceedings continue ex parte is essentially procedural in nature and is intended to regulate the conduct and progression of arbitral proceedings. An order, by itself, neither adjudicates the substantive disputes between the parties nor determines any rights or liabilities finally and conclusively.”
Case Title Akash Katyal & Anr. v. PhysicsWallah Ltd. & Anr.
Case Number ARB.P. 674/2026
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 499
The Delhi High Court has, on Wednesday, referred a lease dispute between edtech company PhysicsWallah Ltd. and three other individuals to arbitration.
The court held that an arbitration clause, even if inelegantly drafted or lacking precision in its phraseology, can still constitute a valid arbitration agreement if it sufficiently reflects the parties' intention to arbitrate.
Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar appointed Advocate Mohini Bhat as the Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute valued at approximately ₹7 crore. The Court clarified that its role at the Section 11 stage is limited to a prima facie examination of the existence of an arbitration agreement rather than adjudicating contested factual or legal issues.
“This Court is of the view that, although Clause 26 is inelegantly drafted and lacks precision in its phraseology, the same sufficiently reflects the intention of the parties to resolve inter se disputes through arbitration,” the Bench held.
Delhi High Court Halts Arbitration in Ramprastha–Rhine Power Dispute Pending Contempt Ruling
Case Title : M/s Ramprastha Promoters Developers Pvt Ltd v. M/s Rhine Power Pvt Ltd
Case Number: LPA 118/2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 485
The Delhi High Court on 20 April upheld a Single Judge's order directing that arbitration proceedings between Ramprastha Promoters & Developers Pvt. Ltd. and investor Rhine Power Pvt. Ltd. remain stayed until the Court decides a pending contempt petition concerning alleged sale of fifteen flats in breach of a subsisting Section 9 injunction.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia dismissed Ramprastha's intra-court appeal and affirmed the direction deferring arbitration, holding that the contempt proceedings and arbitration were inextricably linked and could not proceed independently. It observed:
“Compelling continuation of the arbitration while the contempt petition remains pending would be manifestly unjust, as the outcome of the contempt proceedings would have a direct bearing on the nature of relief in arbitration. The issues arising are inextricably connected, and it is appropriate to await the decision in the contempt petition.”
Case Title : Sterlite Technologies Ltd. v. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited
Case Number :O.M.P. (COMM) 261/2023
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 482
The Delhi High Court on Monday dismissed Sterlite Technologies Ltd.'s challenge to an arbitral award that limited its payment to 25% of the quoted service cost for optical fiber cables laid through other empty ducts already laid in the same multi-duct trench under a defence telecom project.
Justice Avneesh Jhingan held that Clause 28(iii) of the purchase order independently governed the issue, regardless of the dispute over the applicability of the tender clause dealing with government ducts.
“Clause 28 (iii) of the PO without reference to the clarification unambiguously stated that twenty-five percent of the quoted rate of service shall be paid for laying cable through the existing ducts,” the court said.
Case Title: Sapphire Media Limited v. NBCC Services Limited & Anr.
Case Number: W.P.(C) 4147/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 481
The Delhi High Court has set aside the disqualification of a company's technical bid for interior and fit-out work at the India International Arbitration Centre (IIAC), holding that “hyper-technical” objections relating to solvency certificates cannot defeat the objective of a fair and competitive tender process.
A division bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Amit Mahajan observed that the exclusion of bidders on a “myopic view or on hyper-technical grounds” would undermine the very purpose of public tendering, which is to maximise public value through a fair, transparent and competitive process.
Pre-Arbitration Mutual Discussion Clauses Are Directory, Not Mandatory: Delhi High Court
Case Title Orix Corporation India Ltd. v. Peters Surgical India Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number ARB.P. 119/2026
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 478
The Delhi High Court on 7 May held that failure to engage in pre-arbitral mutual discussions cannot bar invocation of an arbitration clause or appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, since clauses requiring parties to first attempt amicable settlement are directory and not mandatory.
Justice Mini Pushkarna appointed Advocate Isha Bhalla as sole arbitrator to adjudicate disputes between Orix Corporation India Ltd. and Peters Surgical India Pvt. Ltd. arising out of a Master Lease Agreement dated 23 December 2023 relating to a Range Rover Velar. The Single-Judge Bench observed:
“As regards the contention of the respondent with regard to mutual discussion not having taken place between the parties, it is no more res integra that such provisions, for the purposes of mutual discussion, which are pre-arbitral mechanisms, are only directory in nature, and such covenant in a clause of an agreement is not mandatory in nature. Therefore, merely because mutual discussion between the parties has not taken place, it shall not be an impediment for the purposes of invoking the Arbitration Clause or for appointment of an Arbitrator.”
Bombay High Court
Bombay High Court Refers Talent Management Firm's Dispute With YouTuber Prajakta Koli To Arbitration
Case Title: OneDigital Entertainment Pte Ltd. v. Prajakta Koli
Case Number: Commercial Arbitration Petition (L) No. 15100 of 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 295
The Bombay High Court recently referred disputes between Singapore-based talent management firm OneDigital Entertainment Pte Ltd. and YouTuber-actor Prajakta Koli to arbitration.
A single bench of Justice Sandeep V. Marne appointed former Bombay High Court judge Justice Sadhana Jadhav as the sole arbitrator to adjudicate disputes arising out of a Performance of Artists Management Agreement dated September 10, 2015.
OneDigital had approached the High Court seeking interim relief before the commencement of arbitral proceedings.
During the hearing, both sides agreed to move the dispute to an arbitral tribunal instead of continuing with the interim relief proceedings, with the arbitration to be conducted as a domestic arbitration seated in Mumbai.
Bombay High Court Holds Arbitral Tribunal Cannot Rewrite EPC Contract Or Shift Contractual Risk
Case Title : The President of India through Chief Engineer (Construction)/CPM/NGP Central Railway v. KEC International Ltd.
Case Number : Commercial Arbitration Petition No. 855 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 296
The Bombay High Court has partly set aside an arbitral award in favour of KEC International Ltd. in its dispute with Central Railway, holding that the Arbitral Tribunal went beyond the contract by treating increased earthwork quantities as a change in scope and granting additional payment.
Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh observed that a lump sum EPC contract places the risk of quantity variations and site conditions on the contractor. This risk cannot later be shifted to Central Railway through arbitration. She held:
“The Arbitral Tribunal, instead of enforcing the terms of the contract has re-written the contract by including the variation in the quantities of earthwork as a change of scope as defined under Article 13 at the behest of the Claimant, which right was not available to the Claimant under the contract and has converted the lump sum contract into item wise contract. Re-writing of contract would be breach of fundamental principles of justice entitling the Court to interfere under Section 34 of Arbitration Act. A party to the agreement cannot be made liable to perform something for which it has not entered into a contract.”
Bombay High Court Allows Builder To Pursue Fresh Arbitration Despite Appeal Against Earlier Award
Case Title: Vardhaman Builders Versus. Narendra Balasaheb Ghatge and Anr
Case Number : Commercial Arbitration Application No.115 Of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 290
The Bombay High Court has allowed Vardhaman Builders to pursue fresh arbitration for damages over the termination of a redevelopment agreement, despite a pending appeal against an earlier arbitral award in the same dispute.
Justice Sandeep V. Marne noted that the Supreme Court had refused to interfere with an earlier Bombay High Court order that allowed Vardhaman Builders to pursue fresh arbitration limited to damages.
He held, “The Apex Court has permitted continuation of parallel proceedings viz. Appeal, as well as fresh arbitral proceedings meaning thereby that a reference to arbitration can be made for adjudication of claims of the Applicant for damages/compensation even during pendency of the Appeal.”
Case Title: Ajazul Haque Khan Versus ICICI Bank Limited
Case Number : COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION PETITION (L) NO. 16052 OF 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 297
The Bombay High Court recently cautioned that banks conducting recovery proceedings “at an industrial scale” through self-chosen Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) platforms risk concentrating multiple disputes before the same arbitrator.
The court held that banks cannot sidestep the requirement of independent arbitral appointments by offering borrowers a purported choice from a list of ODR platforms curated by the bank itself.
“In any case, for a bank to conduct recovery proceedings at an industrial scale across multiple accounts through a self-chosen ODR Platform, from its curated pool of arbitrators, can lead to multiple cases being handled by the same individual arbitrator. The ODR Platforms would need to enhance their catchment area and expand their pools, but recovery proceedings where orders under Section 17 are passed with barely any display of facts much less complex facts, would hardly fall within the ambit of the kinds of arbitration where it is a custom and practice to appoint from a specialised pool of arbitrators.”
Calcutta High Court
Case Title : L AND T FINANCE LIMITED VS AMINA FUELS AND ORS.
Case Number: EC-COM 293 OF 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 119
The Calcutta High Court has recently held that a party interested in the outcome of an arbitration dispute cannot indirectly control the appointment of a sole arbitrator by unilaterally approaching an arbitration institution of its own choosing.
“The law does not permit such a stratagem. The prohibition engrafted by Section 12(5) and the judicial decisions thereunder is directed not merely at the formal act of appointing an arbitrator, but at the substance of the process, the unilateral control by an interested party over the constitution of the tribunal that is to adjudicate its own claims,” Justice Gaurang Kanth held,
“Whether that control is exercised directly through a personal appointment, or indirectly through the unilateral invocation of an institutional mechanism, the vices of partiality, inequality and conflict of interest are identical. The form cannot save what the substance condemns,” the court added.
Pending IBC Proceedings Do Not Bar Arbitration Referral: Calcutta HC In SREI-Orissa Steel Dispute
Case Title :SREI Infrastructure Finance Limited & Anr. v. Orissa Steel Expressway Private Limited
Case Number: AP-COM/595/2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 113
The Calcutta High Court has referred a dispute between SREI group entities and Orissa Steel Expressway Private Limited to arbitration. It held that objections based on pending insolvency proceedings, allegations of fraud, and the status of a non-signatory claimant must be decided by the arbitral tribunal, not at the stage of appointing an arbitrator.
“Thus, the question of arbitrability of the disputes and supremacy of IBC over the arbitral proceeding, will have to be decided by the learned Arbitrator, upon appreciation of evidence," a single-judge bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar held.
“As the scope of the referral court is limited only to the satisfaction of the existence of the arbitration agreement, Mr. Das's contentions against the maintainability of this application are not accepted,” She added.
Case Title :Tata Steel Limited Vs Msp Sponge Iron Limited
Case Number : AP-COM/297/2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 112
Participation in arbitration proceedings cannot validate proceedings before a tribunal that was not constituted in accordance with law, the Calcutta High Court has held while setting aside an arbitral award in a dispute between Tata Steel Limited and MSP Sponge Iron Limited.
“The participation of the petitioner before a forum which was not constituted as per law and did not have the jurisdiction to decide the dispute is inconsequential. A party who cannot act as an arbitrator, cannot also choose an arbitrator," Justice Shampa Sarkar held.
Case Title :Malathy Constructions vs Bridge and Roof Co. India Ltd.
Case Number: AP-COM 61 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 114
The Calcutta High Court has recently held that arbitral proceedings cannot be validly commenced on the basis of a vague or ambiguous invocation notice that fails to clearly identify the arbitration agreement or clause relied upon, or is not shown to have been received by the opposing party.
Justice Gaurang Kanth held, “The Section 21 notice is not a mere procedural formality, rather it is a jurisdictional prerequisite that marks the very commencement of arbitration proceedings.”
He added, “A notice that is vague, ambiguous, or fails to identify the arbitration agreement or clause sought to be invoked, or a notice that does not clearly indicate that arbitration is being invoked as the dispute resolution mechanism under the Act, does not satisfy the requirements of Section 21 and cannot be treated as constituting a valid commencement of arbitration proceedings.”
Gujarat High Court
Case Title: Kirloskar Pneumatic Company Limited v. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited
Case Number: R/Special Civil Application No. 4277 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(GUJ) 64
The Gujarat High Court on 8 May held that the juridical “seat” of arbitration cannot be shifted merely because arbitral proceedings were conducted elsewhere or because the arbitral tribunal recorded such a statement in procedural minutes, where the contract required any variation to be made only through a formal written amendment.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice D.N. Ray upheld a Commercial Court order refusing to shift the arbitration seat from Ankleshwar to Ahmedabad in a dispute between Kirloskar Pneumatic Company Limited and Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited (ONGC). The Court observed:
“For shifting of 'juridical seat', there may be a mutual agreement of the parties, however, such an agreement or consent shall be express in writing, clearly understood and agreed by the parties. As found by us that there is no such mutual agreement or consent of the parties in writing, expressly and clearly understood and agreed by them, it cannot be held that the statement recorded by the learned Arbitrator in paragraph No. '5' of the preliminary arbitral meeting dated 07.10.2021 is the mutual agreement of the parties for shifting of the jurisdictional “seat” of arbitration from 'Ankleshwar' to 'Ahmedabad'.”
Himachal Pradesh High Court
Case Title: L&T Himachal Hydro Power Limited v. Government of Himachal Pradesh and Another
Case Number : CMP No. 27640 of 2025 in CWP No. 1816 of 2018 and CMP No. 27641 of 2025 in CWP No. 1817 of 2018
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (HP) 15
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has refused to send the ₹84 crore dispute between L&T Himachal Hydro Power Limited and the State government over the Reoli-Dugli hydropower project to arbitration.
The court held that the State waited too long to seek that remedy after contesting the writ petitions for more than seven years.
“As already noticed above, after the amendment carried out in the Act in the year 2015, if the party applies not later than date of submitting the first statement on the substance of the dispute, the Court has to refer the matter for arbitration in view of the arbitration agreement. However, in the present case, the application has been filed after seven years of submitting the first statement of substance. No doubt, the plea has been taken in the reply to the writ petition, but the same is not enough, to get the matter referred for arbitration.." Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj held.
Allahabad High Court
Case Title : Sushil Kumar Prajapati v. Union of India and 3 others
Case Number: WRIT - C No. - 26448 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (ALL) 39
The Allahabad High Court on 5 May held that a writ petition challenging an ex parte arbitral award is maintainable in exceptional circumstances involving lack of jurisdiction or violation of principles of natural justice.
A Division Bench of Justices Ajit Kumar and Indrajeet Shukla allowed the writ petition filed by Sushil Kumar Prajapati the proprietor of Laxmi Medical Agency against the Central Hospital, North Central Railway, Allahabad, and set aside an ex parte arbitral award passed in Kolkata after holding that the arbitrator had unilaterally shifted the agreed seat of arbitration from Allahabad to Kolkata without the parties' consent. It observed:
“In exceptional circumstances where the proceedings are vitiated for lack of jurisdiction or a palpable breach of natural justice, this Court must not remain a silent spectator. To hold otherwise would be to allow a procedural technicality to strangle the substantive rights of the parties in the face of manifest arbitrariness.”
Allahabad High Court Refuses Writ Against MSME Council Award, Directs Recourse Under Section 34
Case Title: Shri Krishna Nutriton India Pvt Ltd Versus The Micro Small and Medium Enterprises and another
Case Number: WRIT - C No. - 8895 of 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (ALL) 38
The Allahabad High Court on 30 April reiterated that a writ petition challenging an ex-parte award passed by the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Facilitation Council under Section 18 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 is not maintainable when the statute provides an alternative remedy under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
A Division Bench of Justices Saral Srivastava and Garima Prashad dismissed the writ petition filed by Shri Krishna Nutrition India Pvt. Ltd. against an ex-parte award passed by the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Facilitation Council, Kanpur directing the company to pay Rs. 24 lakhs. The judges observed:
“Proceedings under Section 18 of the 2006 Act culminate in an arbitral award and the statute itself provides a remedy under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.”
Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court
Case Title Kanta Devi v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number Arb. Pet. No. 38/2020 c/w AA No. 15/2020
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC (JAM) 16
The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court on 12 May dismissed a petition by Kanta Devi under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, holding that no valid arbitration agreement existed in relation to an ad hoc petrol pump dealership governed through a temporary arrangement with Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (HPCL).
Justice Rajnesh Oswal held that applying operational terms of HPCL's Standard Dealership Agreement to a temporary arrangement did not amount to incorporation of Clause 66 containing the arbitration clause. The Bench held:
“In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, this Court has no hesitation in holding that terms and conditions of the Standard Dealership Agreement were not ipso facto incorporated into the communication dated 18.04.2018; rather, they were made applicable solely for the purpose of the outlet's operation. Consequently, the arbitration clause contained in Clause 66 of the Standard Dealership Agreement did not form part of the communication dated 18.04.2018. Had the parties intended to settle disputes through arbitration, they would have explicitly stated so in the 18.04.2018 communication.”
Telangana High Court
Telangana High Court Dismisses MSME's Plea Against Arbitration Reference After Consent To Tribunal
Case Title SRP: MINERALS PVT LTD vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS
Case Number: WRIT PETITION No.11193 OF 2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (TEL) 31
The Telangana High Court has held that a company cannot challenge an MSME arbitration reference after consenting to the constitution of the arbitral tribunal and participating in the proceedings.
“After giving consent to the constitution of the Arbitral Tribunal and thereafter having participated in the proceedings before it, the writ petitioner cannot subsequently challenge the reference of the dispute to arbitration on the ground of the dispute not amenable to arbitration,” the Court observed.
A Division Bench of Justices Moushumi Bhattacharya and Gadi Praveen Kumar dismissed SRP Minerals' writ petition challenging the MSME Facilitation Council's decision to refer its dispute with Sai Teja Construction Ltd to arbitration before the International Arbitration and Mediation Centre, Hyderabad.
The Court also vacated interim protection granted to the company.
Holding that the petition was an after-thought and a last-ditch attempt to scuttle the arbitral proceedings, the Court said:
“Thus, we are of the considered view that the writ petitioner has filed this Writ Petition only as an after-thought and as a last ditch attempt to scuttle the arbitration between the parties.”
Punjab & Haryana High Court
Case Title: M/s Pahwa Impex Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s Kanuj Home Textiles Exim
Case Number: CR-5403-2025 (O&M)
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (PNH) 25
The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Friday held that a party that withdraws its challenge to an arbitral award cannot later use the High Court's supervisory jurisdiction to reopen the same dispute through a different route.
“The supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 being discretionary and equitable ought not to be exercised in favour of a litigant who has by withdrawing the objections abandoned the statutory remedy and now seeks to circumvent the consequences of that withdrawal."
Justice Jasgurpreet Singh Puri dismissed a civil revision petition filed by Pahwa Impex Pvt. Ltd. against execution proceedings initiated by Kanuj Home Textiles Exim to recover ₹84.21 lakh along with interest awarded in arbitration.