LiveLawBiz Arbitration Cases Weekly Digest: May 25 - May 30, 2026
Shivani PS
1 Jun 2026 11:40 AM IST
NOMINAL INDEX
Ashok and Ors. v. Padam Chand and Ors., 2026 LLBiz SC 211
Madhya Pradesh Road Development Corporation Ltd. v. M/s Jabalpur Corridor Pvt. Ltd., 2026 LLBiz SC 210
Tarini Prasad Mohanty v. M/s Sunflag Iron and Steel Company Limited, 2026 LLBiz SC 206
Bhupesh Bhayana and Another v. Kunal Seth and Another, 2026 LLBiz SC 205
Gujarat Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. Saryu Plastics Pvt. Ltd., 2026 LLBiz SC 203
M/S BRH Wealth Kreators Ltd. v. Sudhir Kumar Aggarwal, 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 558
Jiangxi Construction Engineering Group Co Ltd & Anr. v. M/s Varaha Infra Ltd., 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 554
Mrs Amila Singhvi & Anr. v. Mr Nitin Gupta, 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 557
Bhanu Arora v. Mr Aditya Bhutani & Anr., 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 550
QC One Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation, 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 549
Kalpataru Projects International Limited v. JSW Infrastructure Limited, 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 546
Public Works Department (Govt. of Delhi) Through Its Office Executive Engineer (Electrical) v. Budhiraja Electricals Through Its Partner Mr. Mohinder Lal Budhiraja connected with Budhiraja Electricals v. Public Works Department (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 543
Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation Limited v. Foodworld, 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 540
The Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. & Ors. v. Piyush Kumar, 2026 LLBiz HC(PAT) 14
HCL Infosystems Limited v. Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited & Ors. C/W Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited & Ors. v. HCL Infosystems Limited, 2026 LLBiz HC(RAJ) 24
Legal Representatives of Late Shree Ramesh Chandra Patel v. City Pulse Enterprise Private Limited, 2026 LLBiz HC(RAJ) 23
Parsa Kente Collieries Limited v. Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Limited, 2026 LLBiz HC(RAJ) 21
M/s Hassan Roads Construction Company Private Limited v. J&K Economic Reconstruction Agency and ors., 2026 LLBiz HC (JAM) 18
R Sampathkumar v. The Marine Products Export Development Authority & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC(KER) 79
Union of India v. Nar Bahadur Dahal (NBD), 2026 LLBiz HC (SI) 1
State of HP and Another v. M/s Garg Sons Estate Promotors Pvt. Ltd., 2026 LLBiz HC(HP) 21
Naveen Auto Store Sole Proprietary v. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC (HP) 22
Supreme Court
Case Title : Ashok and Ors. v. Padam Chand and Ors.
Case Number: Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 18146 of 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz SC 211
The Supreme Court on Friday held that under the now-repealed Arbitration Act, 1940, parties to a pending civil suit could not validly refer their dispute to arbitration without jointly approaching the court where the suit was pending for a reference.
The court consequently decreed a suit for possession and mesne profits concerning a property in Gwalior and set aside a Madhya Pradesh High Court judgment that had upheld dismissal of the suit.
A bench of Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Atul S. Chandurkar allowed an appeal filed by the legal heirs of Haridas, who had purchased the disputed property in a court auction. The appeal was directed against Padam Chand and his family members, who claimed rights over portions of the property.
On the requirement of obtaining a court reference while a suit was pending, the Court observed:
“Therefore, for any valid arbitration referral between the parties during pendency of the 1982 Suit, both the parties had to agree and apply before the Court where the 1982 Suit was pending, which admittedly is not the case herein. In light of foregoing discussion, it is luculent that once a suit was pending between the parties, only option available for referring the matter to arbitration was by way of application under Section 21 of the 1940 Act. Any other route either under Chapter II or Chapter III of the 1940 Act would be improper.”
Arbitration In India Has Not Failed, Courts Sometimes Have Failed Arbitration: Supreme Court
Case Title: Madhya Pradesh Road Development Corporation Ltd. v. M/s Jabalpur Corridor Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 10877 of 2018
Citation: 2026 LLBiz SC 210
The Supreme Court on Friday remarked that “Arbitration in India has not failed; however, Courts sometimes have failed arbitration in India,” while dismissing Madhya Pradesh Road Development Corporation Ltd.'s (MPRDC) challenge to an arbitral award that had already survived multiple rounds of judicial scrutiny over nearly 12 years.
A Bench of Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar made the observation while refusing to interfere with an arbitral award in favour of Jabalpur Corridor Pvt. Ltd. (JCPL). The Court also rejected MPRDC's attempt to revive a jurisdictional objection that had attained finality in earlier proceedings.
“A single doubtful precedent in the arbitration field has the potential to cast a shadow on its viability in India and its impact on the ease of doing business in India. There is no gainsaying that judicial interference in alternative dispute resolution has often been a cure without a disease in India. In this context, it is high time that judges realize that certainty, uniformity, and finality are also cherished values.”
Case Title : Tarini Prasad Mohanty v. M/s Sunflag Iron and Steel Company Limited
Case Number: Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 27534 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz SC 206
The Supreme Court on Wednesday held that non-stamping or insufficient stamping of an agreement does not invalidate it and that the arbitral tribunal must decide such objections in the first instance, discouraging High Court interference in ongoing arbitration proceedings.
A bench of Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar held “The agreement survives non-stamping or insufficient stamping, and the defect can be cured by getting the agreement sufficiently stamped at any stage, whereupon it becomes admissible in the eyes of law. It is the arbitral tribunal that is empowered to deal with this issue in the first instance.”
The bench added, “The remedy of having the Tribunal satisfy itself on the question of stamping under Section 16, with the award remaining open to challenge at a later stage, is not inadequate.”
Supreme Court Refuses To Set Aside “Patently Illegal” Arbitral Award, Modifies Relief Instead
Case Title : Bhupesh Bhayana and Another v. Kunal Seth and Another
Case Number : C.A. No. 008192-008193/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz SC 205
The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to set aside an arbitral award despite finding it to be patently illegal, choosing instead to modify the award itself to bring finality to a dispute that has been pending since 2012.
A Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran observed that sending the parties back into fresh litigation would cause further hardship and delay.
“Though the award, being patently illegal, deserves to be set aside under Section 34(2A) of the Arbitration Act, we are of the opinion that doing so would not be in the interest of justice, given the fact that the parties have been litigating since the year 2012. Setting aside the award at this stage would mean that they would again have to start afresh..”
The Court instead recalculated the parties' mutual entitlements and directed the owners' side to pay ₹25.62 lakh to the builder's legal heirs.
Case Title : Gujarat Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. Saryu Plastics Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number: Civil Appeal Nos. 769-770 of 2026
Citation :2026 LLBiz SC 203
The Supreme Court on Tuesday reiterated that the limited power to correct clerical, computational, or typographical errors in an arbitral award cannot be used to substantially modify it by replacing simple interest with compound interest.
Setting aside Gujarat High Court and Commercial Court orders, the Court held that Saryu Plastics Pvt. Ltd. was entitled only to simple interest at 21.675% during the pendency of arbitration, reversing a modification that had increased Gujarat Water Supply and Sewerage Board's liability from about ₹30.38 crore to ₹144.93 crore.
A Division Bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe held that the corrective power available in arbitral proceedings cannot be converted into a mechanism for revisiting the merits of an award.
Explaining why the Commercial Court could not substitute simple interest with compound interest, the Bench observed:
“Section 33(1)(a) of the Act confers upon the arbitral Tribunal the limited power to correct any computational, clerical, or typographical errors in an Award. The provision is neither designed nor intended to serve as a vehicle for the substantive modification of an Award or the review of the merits of the findings recorded therein.,” the bench observed.
High Courts
Delhi High Court
Case Title : M/S BRH Wealth Kreators Ltd. v. Sudhir Kumar Aggarwal
Case Number : FAO (COMM) 55/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 558
The Delhi High Court has partly set aside findings of a District Judge that had held brokerage firm BRH Wealth Kreators Ltd. guilty of defrauding an investor in connection with alleged unauthorised trades in his demat account.
It held that findings of fraud cannot be returned without documentary evidence and cannot be based on intuition, conjectures or surmises.
However, a Division Bench of Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora upheld the District Judge's order only to the extent that it gave effect to the Investor Grievance Redressal Panel's (IGRP) order. The Bench modified the relief granted by the IGRP and directed the brokerage firm to pay ₹20 lakh to investor Sudhir Kumar Aggarwal in full and final settlement of the dispute.
It observed, “We find merit in the submission of the Appellant to the effect that the said findings are not based on any documentary evidence and are instead based on conjectures and surmises. The findings of the fraud had to be on the basis of the documentary evidence available on record and could not be based on the intuition of the Court. The said findings of the fraud are directly contrary to the findings returned by the Appellate Arbitral Tribunal on the basis of the documents. We, therefore, set aside the order of the learned District Judge to the extent it finds the Appellant guilty of practicing fraud on the Respondent herein"
Case Title: Jiangxi Construction Engineering Group Co Ltd & Anr. v. M/s Varaha Infra Ltd.
Case Number: ARB.P. 247/2026 & O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 23/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 554
The Delhi High Court has referred to arbitration a fresh round of disputes between Jiangxi Construction Engineering Group Co. Ltd. and Varaha Infra Ltd., holding that claims arising from their joint venture agreements, settlement arrangement, consent arbitral award and mortgage deeds were too closely connected to be separated.
Justice Mini Pushkarna appointed former Delhi High Court judge Justice (Retd.) Jayant Nath as sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties.
The court observed, "Thus, the disputes as raised by the petitioners with regard to non-compliance of the terms of the Settlement Agreement and Consent Arbitral Award and the disputes with regard to the Mortgage Deed dated 06th May, 2022, are intertwined.”
The Court further held, “Accordingly, all the disputes raised by the petitioners in terms of the JV Agreements between the parties, for violation of the terms of the Settlement Agreement and Consent Arbitral Award and all the disputes in terms of the Mortgage Deed between the parties, in terms of the invocation of the Arbitration Clause by the respondent, are to be referred for adjudication before an Arbitral Tribunal.”
Case Title: Mrs Amila Singhvi & Anr. v. Mr Nitin Gupta
Case Number: EFA (COMM) 20/2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 557
The Delhi High Court has held that directors of International Print O Pac Ltd., against whom execution proceedings were initiated after the corporate veil of the company was lifted, can raise all objections available to the company, including a plea that the arbitral award sought to be enforced is a nullity.
A Division Bench of Justice Dinesh Mehta and Justice Vinod Kumar set aside a Saket Commercial Court order rejecting objections filed by directors Amila Singhvi and another against enforcement of an arbitral award of ₹82.39 lakh in favour of Nitin Gupta, proprietor of Tirupati Paper Corporation.
The dispute arose out of arbitration proceedings initiated by Gupta for recovery of outstanding dues. The invoices exchanged between the parties contained a clause stating, "All disputes are subject to P.M.A. Delhi and jurisdiction of Delhi Courts."
Delhi High Court Denies Interim Relief To Buyer As Developer's Claims Fail In Arbitration
Case Title: Bhanu Arora v. Mr Aditya Bhutani & Anr.
Case Number: O.M.P.(I) 20/2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 550
The Delhi High Court has refused interim protection to a purchaser seeking to restrain the creation of third-party rights and maintain status quo over the first floor of a Greater Kailash-I property, holding that the claim could not survive once the developer's claimed authority to create such rights stood rejected in arbitration
Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar held that the buyer's claim was entirely derivative of the Collaboration Agreement executed between developer Aditya Bhutani and the property owner, under which Bhutani had claimed authority to deal with the property.
“The present Petition, in effect, seeks protection and enforcement of rights which are entirely derivative of the claims asserted by Respondent No. 1 under the Collaboration Agreement. Once those claims themselves have been negatived by a binding arbitral award presently operating in law, this Court cannot, in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 9 of the A&C Act, grant interim reliefs which would directly or indirectly defeat, dilute, or render ineffective the findings returned in the arbitral award dated 03.02.2026” the Court observed.
Case Title: QC One Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation
Case Number: O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 132/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 549
The Delhi High Court has refused interim relief to QC One Solutions Pvt. Ltd. against Delhi Metro Rail Corporation's termination of a licence agreement for commercial spaces at three metro stations. The court prima facie found that the company had repeatedly defaulted on payment of licence fees and electricity dues despite multiple opportunities to cure the breaches.
Justice Vikas Mahajan, in an order passed on May 20, held that QC One Solutions had failed to establish a prima facie case for protection pending arbitration.
“In the absence of any contractual provision invalidating prior notices due to the mere passage of time, the alleged procedural infirmity cannot serve as a valid ground to grant equitable relief under Section 9 of the Act, rather it is borne out from the record that while the respondent repeatedly afforded the petitioner opportunities to cure their defaults, these opportunities appear to have been met with delayed and partial payments, thereby prima facie establishing a consistent pattern of breach regarding fundamental contractual obligations.," the court observed.
Extension Without Liquidated Damages Does Not Bar Damages Or Bank Guarantee Invocation: Delhi HC
Case Title : Kalpataru Projects International Limited v. JSW Infrastructure Limited
Case Number: O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 218/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 546
The Delhi High Court on 25 May held that extension of time without levy of liquidated damages does not, by itself, prevent a party from later invoking contractual remedies, including liquidated damages and enforcement of an unconditional bank guarantee, where disputes relating to delay and termination require arbitral adjudication.
A Bench of Justice Mini Pushkarna declined relief to Kalpataru Projects International Limited and refused to grant interim protection under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, in a dispute arising from a Rs. 240 crore iron ore slurry pipeline project in Odisha. It held:
“This Court is of the prima facie view that the extension of time for completion of the Contract without liquidated damages entailed execution of the work by the petitioner. In the absence of completion of the work and in view of the various disputes between the parties as regards execution of the work and termination of the contract by the petitioner, it cannot prima facie be said that the respondent would be barred from imposing liquidated damages.”
Case Title: Public Works Department (Govt. of Delhi) Through Its Office Executive Engineer (Electrical) v. Budhiraja Electricals Through Its Partner Mr. Mohinder Lal Budhiraja connected with Budhiraja Electricals v. Public Works Department (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
Case Number: O.M.P. (COMM.) 207/2017 and O.M.P. (ENF.) (COMM.) 46/2018
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 543
The Delhi High Court on 22 May set aside arbitral awards granting Rs. 38.96 lakh towards escalation and Rs. 16.23 lakh towards loss of profits to Budhiraja Electricals in its dispute with the Public Works Department, Government of NCT of Delhi.
Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar held that an arbitral tribunal cannot use Clause 10CC of the General Conditions of Contract as a substitute for proof of actual loss once it finds the clause inapplicable to the extended period, and reiterated that damages must be proved under Section 73 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. The Bench held:
“Mere adoption of a contractual formula, particularly one which itself stands excluded by the terms of the contract for the relevant period, cannot substitute the requirement of evidence. By treating the formula under Clause 10CC of the GCC as a proxy for proof of damages, the learned Arbitrator has effectively dispensed with the fundamental burden resting upon the claimant to establish actual loss and its quantification. Such an approach renders the Award legally vulnerable”.
Delhi High Court Quashes ₹2.30 Crore Arbitral Award Against IRCTC In Meal Tariff Dispute
Case Title: Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation Limited v. Foodworld
Case Number: O.M.P. (COMM) 51/2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 540
The Delhi High Court has set aside an arbitral award directing Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation Ltd. (IRCTC) to pay ₹2.30 crore to Foodworld in a dispute over reimbursement for second regular meals and welcome drinks under railway catering contracts.
Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar held that the controversy was substantially covered by the Supreme Court's ruling in Indian Railways Catering and Tourism Corp. Ltd. v. Brandavan Food Products.
“The interpretation adopted by the learned Arbitrator in the present matter is directly contrary to the binding legal position declared by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court and, consequently, falls foul of the settled principles governing patent the illegality and contravention of the fundamental policy of Indian law, as elucidated in OPG Power Generation (supra) and the Brandavan case itself." the court observed.
Patna High Court
Case Title: The Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. & Ors. v. Piyush Kumar
Case Number: Commercial Appeal No. 7 of 2025 and Commercial Appeal No. 14 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(PAT) 14
The Patna High Court has partly set aside an arbitral award against Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd, holding that compensation awarded without evidence of actual loss or injury could not be sustained.
A Division Bench of Justice Mohit Kumar Shah and Justice Arun Kumar Jha held:
“Thus, there is no proof much less any evidence whatsoever, on the records of the arbitral proceedings regarding the claimant-respondent having suffered any loss or injury, hence the award of compensation to the tune of Rs.25 lakhs is based on no evidence, thus is outrightly perverse, hence is set aside.”
The court, however, upheld the principal award of ₹22.67 crore in favour of the contractor.
Rajasthan High Court
Case Title : HCL Infosystems Limited v. Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited & Ors. C/W Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited & Ors. v. HCL Infosystems Limited
Case Number: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16033/2024 C/w S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7066/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(RAJ) 24
The Rajasthan High Court on 27 May held that arbitral proceedings must remain aligned with the statutory objective of expedition, efficiency, and cost-effectiveness under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and that procedural delay cannot justify repeated extensions of an arbitral tribunal's mandate under Section 29A.
Justice Sameer Jain, invoking former Chief Justice of India Justice P.N. Bhagwati's observation that “Procedure is but a means to an end, not an end in itself”, partly allowed petitions filed by the Rajasthan DISCOMs and modified the Commercial Court's order that had extended the mandate of a three-member arbitral tribunal in a Rs. 528 crore dispute with HCL Infosystems Limited. He held:
“When factors are viewed cumulatively, a clear picture emerges, as that the high per-session fee structure, when combined with discontinuous hearings, has escalated costs disproportionately; the change in venue has added avoidable financial and logistical strain; the procedural laxity has prolonged the proceedings beyond reasonable limits. These elements, taken together, have undermined the foundational principles of arbitration, namely, efficiency, economy, and expedition, and have resulted in manifest prejudice to the parties, particularly in terms of financial burden and delayed adjudication.”
Case Title : Legal Representatives of Late Shree Ramesh Chandra Patel v. City Pulse Enterprise Private Limited
Case Number: D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1277/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(RAJ) 23
The Rajasthan High Court on 22 May held that landlord–tenant disputes governed by the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 are non-arbitrable and fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Rent Tribunal, even where the lease agreement contains an arbitration clause.
A Division Bench of Justices Arun Monga and Sandeep Shah, however, set aside the Commercial Court's order and restored the arbitral award in favour of the legal representatives of late Ramesh Chandra Patel against City Pulse Enterprise Private Limited on procedural grounds relating to Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. It observed:
“under the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001, a tenant enjoys certain statutory protections and can be evicted only on the grounds specified under Section 9 of the Act of 2001 and not otherwise. This, coupled with the language employed under Sections 18 and 29 of the Act of 2001, leaves no manner of doubt that insofar as disputes between landlord and tenant are concerned, including matters ancillary thereto, neither the Civil Court nor any other authority would have jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the same and such disputes are liable to be decided exclusively by the Rent Tribunal in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 2001. Thus, the dispute in question was liable to be adjudicated only by the Rent Tribunal and was not arbitrable.”
Case Title: Parsa Kente Collieries Limited v. Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Limited
Case Number : D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2007/2023
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(RAJ) 21
The Rajasthan High Court has effectively restored arbitral awards in favour of Parsa Kente Collieries Ltd. in its dispute with Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd. The dispute concerned reimbursement of additional costs incurred after the Supreme Court's cancellation of coal block allocations and the subsequent continuation of the mining arrangement.
In 2014, the Supreme Court had quashing coal block allocations across India, holding them arbitrary and illegal.
A Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Bipin Gupta held that the Commercial Court had exceeded the narrow scope of judicial scrutiny over arbitral awards. It said the Commercial Court reassessed evidence and substituted its own interpretation of the contract for that of the arbitrator.
"if we examine the judgement passed by the learned Commercial Court, we find that the learned Commercial Court has examined the award passed by the Arbitrator, as if he was re-examining all the facts and exercising power of an appeal, considering the limited scope available under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 which requires only to see whether the award was induced or affected by fraud or corruption or whether it was in violation of Section 75 or Section 81 of the Act or whether it was in contravention of the fundamental policy of the Indian law or it is in conflict with the most basic notions of morality or justice, that it could be interfered with, is found to be completely absent”
Jammu & Kashmir & Ladakh High Court
J&K High Court Refers ₹34.88 Crore HRCC–ERA Dispute To Arbitration, Holds Non-Operational DRE No Bar
Case Title : M/s Hassan Roads Construction Company Private Limited v. J&K Economic Reconstruction Agency and ors.
Case Number: Arb P No. 53/2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (JAM) 18
The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court on 22 May held that the existence of a contractual pre-arbitration dispute resolution mechanism cannot defeat a party's right to invoke arbitration under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, where such mechanism has not been operationalised.
A Single-Judge Bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar appointed former Chief Justice of the High Court, Justice Ali Mohammad Magrey, as sole arbitrator to adjudicate disputes between Hassan Roads Construction Company Private Limited (HRCC) and the J&K Economic Reconstruction Agency (ERA) arising from termination of a Rs. 34.88 crore infrastructure contract. It held:
“The argument raised by the learned counsel for the respondents, at its first blush, appears to be attractive but upon its detailed examination, it prima facie appears that resort to the mechanism of approaching the Adjudicator/DRE was not feasible and suitable for the petitioner in the facts and circumstances of the present case.”
Kerala High Court
Case Title : R Sampathkumar v. The Marine Products Export Development Authority & Ors.
Case Number : OP(C) No.77 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(KER) 79
The Kerala High Court has held that a company's winding up does not automatically halt arbitral proceedings or shield its promoters from contractual obligations undertaken in their personal capacity.
Justice T.R. Ravi held, “Sections 278 and 279 of the Companies Act can have operation only with regard to claims against the Company and a winding up order will not automatically operate as a stay of further proceedings before the Arbitrator. ”
It added, "The petitioner sought to place reliance on Section 34(2)(a)(i) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act to submit that since the Company was wound up, there is an incapacity. Section 34(2)(a)(i) only says that an arbitral award may be set aside by the court if the party making the application establishes on the basis of the record of arbitral tribunal that a party was under some incapacity. As already found, the incapacity of the Company will not in any manner affect an award against its promoters."
The ruling came while dismissing an original petition filed by R. Sampathkumar challenging a Commercial Court order refusing to stay execution of a 2009 arbitral award passed in favour of the Marine Products Export Development Authority (MPEDA).
Sikkim High Court
Courts Must Call For Arbitral Records Before Deciding Challenge To Arbitral Award: Sikkim High Court
Case Title : Union of India v. Nar Bahadur Dahal (NBD)
Case Number : Arb. A. No. 12 of 2025
Citation :2026 LLBiz HC (SI) 1
The Sikkim High Court has reiterated that a court hearing a challenge to an arbitral award cannot decide the matter without first calling for the records of the arbitral tribunal.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Bhaskar Raj Pradhan observed:
“The Court entertaining the application under Section 34 is required, imperatively, to look into the records of the Arbitral Tribunal to satisfy whether any grounds under Section 34 have been made out or not. Without calling for records, and merely on the basis of the arbitral award and upon hearing the parties, the Court cannot arrive at a conclusion with regard to any of the grounds raised under Section 34."
The ruling came while allowing an appeal filed by the Union of India against a Commercial Court order passed in proceedings challenging a ₹23.21 crore arbitral award in favour of contractor Nar Bahadur Dahal.
Himachal Pradesh High Court
Case Title : State of HP and Another v. M/s Garg Sons Estate Promotors Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : Arb. Appeal No. 451 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(HP)21
The Himachal Pradesh High Court on 22 May held that Courts must adopt a common-sense approach while considering delay condonation applications filed by government authorities under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and that bureaucratic decision-making processes may constitute sufficient cause where the explanation is bona fide.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Gurmeet Singh Sandhawalia and Justice Bipin Chander Negi allowed the appeal filed by the State of Himachal Pradesh and another authority, set aside the Single Judge's order refusing to condone delay, and restored the State's Section 34 petition challenging the arbitral award for adjudication on merits. The judges observed:
“Besides 'Every day's delay must be explained' does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made. The doctrine must be applied in a rational common sense pragmatic manner. The explanation offered in the case at hand, though involving bureaucratic procedures, when examined in the aforesaid perspective reflects a genuine and bona fide cause for the delay in filing the objections under section 34 of the act.”
Case Title : Naveen Auto Store Sole Proprietary v. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. & Ors.
Case Number: Arb. Case No. 814 of 2024
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(HP)22
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has granted interim relief to Naveen Auto Store Sole Proprietary, a Mahindra-authorised service centre operator, and directed Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. to restore the dealer management system (DMS) access of its workshop.
The Court held that the petitioner had made out a prima facie case for interim protection pending arbitration proceedings.
Justice Romesh Verma observed, “The petitioner has been able to demonstrate on record that huge investment including purchases of various tools, various investments, expenditure has been made in the service station at the askance of the respondents. The agreements, which were entered between the parties from time to time, are clear and specific, therefore, the petitioner has been able to make out a prima facie case for the grant interim relief in his favour."