LiveLawBiz Arbitration Cases Weekly Digest: November 1 - November 7, 2026
Shivani PS
9 Nov 2026 2:49 PM IST
NOMINAL INDEX
U.P. Electronics Corporation Ltd. through Managing Director Shri Ravi Ranjan v. P.S. Global through its partner Karolbagh New Delhi, 2026 LLBiz HC(ALL) 91
Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Maulin Niranjan Patel, 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 632
Phantom Studios India Pvt. Ltd. v. Allu Mantena Media Ventures LLP & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 625
Daskalos Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. Atul Khosla, 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 626
Limited Liability Company Eurochem North-West-2 v. Tecnimont S.P.A., 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 628
Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. v. M/s Great Eastern Shipping Co. Ltd. (Now M/s Great Offshore Ltd.) & Connected Petition, 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 624
Advy Biosciences Private Limited v. Swaraj Lifesciences Private Limited, 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 623
Prashant Vinod Vaghasiya & Anr. v. Vivekanand Dhaneshwar Jha & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 636
Gravit-Onsite-JV, India v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 644
M.D. Nehaluddin v. Nusarat Shakil Ahmed, 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 620
M/s Light Lake Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. M/s Aria Hotels and Consultancy Services Pvt. Ltd., 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 1204
M/s C.P. & Associates Pvt. Ltd. v. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 1209
Asian Satellite Broadcast Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Religare Finvest Limited & Anr. (and connected matters), 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 1202
Delhi Development Authority v. Jaksons Developers (P) Ltd., 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 1216
Viceroy Engineering v. Smiths Detection Veecon Systems Pvt. Ltd., 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 1214
M/s. V. K. Jain and Sons v. Neeraj Jain, 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 1210
Facor Alloys Limited Through Its Authorised Representative Sachin Gupta v. Rajadhiraj Tirupani Vinayak Natraj Private Limited, 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 1193
Steel Authority of India Limited v. M/s. Waterbury Farrel & Anr., 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 342
R. Sathyamurthy v. R. Ramsubbu & Others and connected appeals concerning M/s Dinamalar, 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 336
Shilpaben Shah & Ors. v. Jasmin Pravinchandra Shah, 2026 LLBiz HC(GUJ) 165
Exotel Techcom Private Limited & Anr. v. Aman Goel & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC(KAR) 215
Union of India vs M/S Bhagwati Associates, 2026 LLBiz HC(JAM) 37
High Courts
Allahabad High Court
Case Title U.P. Electronics Corporation Ltd. through Managing Director Shri Ravi Ranjan v. P.S. Global through its partner Karolbagh New Delhi
Case Number APPEAL UNDER SECTION 37 OF ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996 No. - 13 of 2026
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC(ALL) 91
The Allahabad High Court has held that a statement of claim filed in the name of a partnership firm does not become non-est merely because the partner who signed it had died by the time it was placed before the arbitrator.
It held that where the remaining partners were alive the proceedings would not abate, and that the objection was at best a procedural irregularity touching neither the merits of the claim nor the arbitrator's jurisdiction.
Order XXX Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that where two or more persons sue or are sued in the name of a firm and any of them dies, whether before the institution or during the pendency of the suit, it is not necessary to join the legal representatives of the deceased as a party.
The bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Jaspreet Singh held
“The firm is a collective name of its partners. Even if one partner had died but the remaining partner were alive, which fact came to be informed while filing the replication and once the claimant was a partnership firm, hence, borrowing the principles of Order XXX C.P.C., the proceedings were to go on and it would not abate.”
Bombay High Court
Case Title Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Maulin Niranjan Patel
Case Number Arbitration Application (L) No. 25878 of 20262026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 632
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 632
The Bombay High Court has held that a credit cardholder's use of a credit card can amount to acceptance of the Cardholder Agreement, including its arbitration clause, even if the credit card application does not bear the cardholder's physical or digital signature.
Justice Amit Borkar was considering four applications filed by Kotak Mahindra Bank seeking reference of disputes with four credit cardholders to arbitration.
“...the court finds that there is prima facie material to show that the Respondent accepted the Cardholder Agreement by using the Credit Card. Therefore, the absence of a physical or digital signature on the application does not prevent the Bank from seeking reference of the dispute to arbitration,” the court held.
Case Title Phantom Studios India Pvt. Ltd. v. Allu Mantena Media Ventures LLP & Ors.
Case Number COMM ARBITRATION PETITION (L) NO.16884 OF 2026
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 625
The Bombay High Court on Tuesday refused to grant interim relief to Phantom Studios India Pvt. Ltd. from contractual restrictions preventing it from producing or commercially exploiting films based on Ramayana and its key characters, including Hanuman, until Diwali 2027.
Justice Amit Borkar rejected Phantom's plea seeking to be released from the restrictions under an Assignment Agreement executed on April 19, 2024, as well as its request for disclosure of payments made and amounts payable under the agreement.
Phantom had argued that it was originally brought under the restrictions because of its shareholding links with Madhu Mantena and entities controlled by him. It contended that after Mantena and his entity exited its shareholding in 2024, there was no reason for it to remain bound by the restrictions.
Rejecting this argument, the court observed that Phantom had been expressly named in Clauses 5.1 and 5.2 of the agreement. The agreement did not provide that the restrictions would cease once Mantena or his entity stopped holding shares in Phantom.
“There is a difference between an entity being covered under the definition of 'Assignor Parties' and Phantom being separately named as a party bound by Clauses 5.1 and 5.2,Both expressions have been used in the Agreement. Therefore, they cannot be treated as having the same meaning, particularly when Phantom has been separately mentioned in the clauses which impose the restrictions” the court observed.
Case Title Daskalos Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. Atul Khosla
Case Number Arbitration Petition (L) No. 34386 of 2026
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 626
The Bombay High Court has restrained a Vice-Chancellor of a private university from representing himself as the serving Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of a company or exercising executive authority on its behalf, pending adjudication of a dispute over his termination.
A Single Bench of Justice Amit Borkar clarified that the restraint does not amount to a final finding that the termination was valid. The court also preserved the vice chancellor's rights as a director and shareholder of the company.
The dispute arose after Daskalos Technologies Private Limited terminated Atul Khosla's employment as CEO, alleging that his simultaneous role as the whole-time Vice-Chancellor of Shoolini University violated the university's statutes and the terms of his employment agreement.
The company relied on a University Grants Commission (UGC) communication stating that a whole-time Vice-Chancellor could not simultaneously work with a private company. It also alleged breaches of contractual clauses requiring the CEO to devote substantial time to the company and restricting him from holding leadership positions elsewhere.
The court, however, observed that the UGC communication was not a final decision after hearing the parties. It noted that the UGC had not considered the permissions allegedly granted by the university or the proceedings of its Board of Management. The communication alone, therefore, could not establish that the employment agreement was void from the beginning.
Case Title Limited Liability Company Eurochem North-West-2 v. Tecnimont S.P.A.
Case Number Commercial Appeal (L) No. 20333 of 2026
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 628
The Bombay High Court on 29 October dismissed an appeal filed by EuroChem North-West-2 against the refusal to freeze the Indian assets of Italian engineering company Tecnimont, following a Russian court judgment awarding the former approximately RUB 171.12 billion.
A Division Bench of Justices Bharati Dangre and Manjusha Deshpande held that a foreign judgment does not automatically entitle a party to interim protection in India and that the requirements for granting an injunction must be independently satisfied. The judges observed:
“Therefore, whenever an opportunity comes for consideration of grant of injunction or any interim order pending the suit, the parameters which are applicable under Order XXXIX Rule 1(b) must apply with equal force”.
Bombay High Court Upholds US$1.13 Million Standby Charges Award Against ONGC For Vessels Kept Ashore
Case Title Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. v. M/s Great Eastern Shipping Co. Ltd. (Now M/s Great Offshore Ltd.) & Connected Petition
Case Number Arbitration Petition Nos. 212 and 211 of 2013
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 624
On 2 November, the Bombay High Court dismissed Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited's (ONGC) challenge to a US$1.13 million arbitral award in favour of Great Eastern Shipping Company Limited for standby charges on vessels reserved for an offshore construction project delayed by ONGC.
Justice Arun R. Pedneker held that vessels reserved and available for contractual work can qualify for standby charges even if they remain ashore, where the employer's own actions prevent the work from commencing as scheduled. The Bench said:
“Since ONGC had withheld the work, there was no reason for the Claimant to mobilise the vessels to the site. The fact that the vessels remained at the shore did not alter their status, as they had been reserved for the contractual work, remained available for deployment, and were on standby.”
Case Title Advy Biosciences Private Limited v. Swaraj Lifesciences Private Limited
Case Number COMM ARBITRATION PETITION (L) NO.32064 OF 2026
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 623
The Bombay High Court has restrained a lifesciences company from selling, transferring or slaughtering 414 goats maintained at its farm for producing Anti-Human IgG (Fc) Serum (Goat).
The court also directed the company to continue the existing veterinary and immunisation procedures and allow another company's livestock supervisor access to the farm.
Justice Amit Borkar passed the order on a petition filed by Advy Biosciences under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, after Swaraj Lifesciences issued a termination notice dated August 24, 2026.
LLP Agreement Need Not Contain Arbitration Clause For Unresolved Partner Disputes: Bombay High Court
Case Title Prashant Vinod Vaghasiya & Anr. v. Vivekanand Dhaneshwar Jha & Ors.
Case Number Commercial Arbitration Petition No. 37 of 2026
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 636
On 4 November, the Bombay High Court held that disputes between partners of a Limited Liability Partnership (LLP) can be referred to arbitration even in the absence of an express arbitration clause, provided they arise out of the LLP agreement and cannot be resolved under its terms.
Justice S.M. Modak allowed a petition filed by Prashant Vinod Vaghasiya and Nirmala Vinod Vaghasiya under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and appointed a sole arbitrator to resolve disputes concerning Avighnaa Infra Buildcon LLP. The Bench held:
“If there is a dispute 'arising out of limited liability partnership agreement' and it cannot be decided 'in terms of the agreement', then it shall be referred to arbitration as per provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. These twin conditions have to be satisfied.”
Disputes Over Main Contract Cannot Justify Restraining Independent Bank Guarantee: Bombay High Court
Case Title Gravit-Onsite-JV, India v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Ors.
Case Number Commercial Arbitration Petition (L) No. 31108 of 2026
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 644
The Bombay High Court has recently dismissed a contractor's plea for interim protection against the invocation of a ₹43.40 lakh counter-guarantee furnished in connection with a sewerage rehabilitation project of the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM).
The court held that disputes over the execution of the underlying contract cannot, by themselves, justify restraining payment under an independent bank guarantee.
Justice Amit Borkar observed that the obligation to make payment under an independent guarantee must be considered separately from disputes concerning the performance of the main contract.
“The dispute about performance of the main contract and the obligation to make payment under an independent guarantee are two different matters. Normally, both cannot be treated as the same,” the court held.
FIR Does Not Prove Guilt, Pending Criminal Case No Bar To Arbitration: Bombay High Court
Case Title M.D. Nehaluddin v. Nusarat Shakil Ahmed
Case Number Arbitration Application (L) No. 26742 of 2026
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 620
The Bombay High Court on 30 October held that the registration of a First Information Report (FIR) does not establish guilt or automatically exclude civil and commercial disputes from arbitration, even when both proceedings arise from the same transactions.
Justice Amit Borkar allowed an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, filed by M.D. Nehaluddin, and appointed Advocate Ashish Venugopal as the sole arbitrator to adjudicate disputes arising from the partnership of Prime Kitchen Care. The Bench held:
“The registration of the FIR cannot be treated as proof that the Applicant committed the acts alleged against him.”
Delhi High Court
Delhi High Court Refers JW Marriott Licensing Dispute Between Light Lake, Aria Hotels To Arbitration
Case Title M/s Light Lake Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. M/s Aria Hotels and Consultancy Services Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 492/2026
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 1204
The Delhi High Court, on 4 November, referred a commercial licensing dispute between Light Lake Enterprises Private Limited and Aria Hotels and Consultancy Services Private Limited, concerning premises at JW Marriott Hotel, Delhi Aerocity, to arbitration.
Justice Manoj Jain appointed former Delhi High Court Judge Justice Chander Shekhar as the sole arbitrator, leaving all questions concerning the parties' claims, objections and the arbitrability of the dispute open for adjudication. The Bench held:
“It is made clear that all the rights and contentions of the parties, including as to the arbitrability of the claim and any other preliminary objections as well as merits of claim or counter claim, if any, are left open for adjudication by the learned Arbitrator.”
Delhi High Court Remands ₹33.76 Crore Metro Arbitration Dispute Over Unexamined Objections
Case Title M/s C.P. & Associates Pvt. Ltd. v. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd
Case Number FAO(OS) (COMM) 186/2023
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 1209
The Delhi High Court on 2 November allowed C.P. & Associates Pvt. Ltd.'s appeal against the dismissal of its challenge to an arbitral award arising from a Rs. 33.76 crore Delhi Metro construction contract with Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. (DMRC).
A Bench of Justices Avneesh Jhingan and Shail Jain held that courts examining challenges to arbitral awards under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, must consider the specific objections raised by parties while remaining within the provision's limited scope of judicial interference. The judges said:
“The court dealing with the objections has a dual duty; firstly, to restrict itself to the parameters laid down under Section 34 of the Act and secondly, to apply mind to the contentions raised and consider them within the scope of Section 34 of the Act.”
Delhi High Court Sets Aside Award Applying Maharashtra Stamp Act To Religare-Zee Loan Agreements
Case Title Asian Satellite Broadcast Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Religare Finvest Limited & Anr. (and connected matters)
Case Number O.M.P. (COMM) 253/2026, 254/2026, 255/2026, 256/2026, 323/2026, 327/2026, 328/2026 and 331/2026.
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 1202
On November 2, the Delhi High Court set aside an interim arbitral award holding that four loan agreements between Religare Finvest Limited and Zee Group companies attracted stamp duty of Rs. 100 each under Maharashtra law.
Justice Om Prakash Shukla held that loan agreements signed by borrowers in Mumbai but executed by the lender in New Delhi attract stamp duty under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, as applicable in Delhi, and not the Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958. The Bench said:
“Although the borrowers had initially appended their signatures in Mumbai, in the considered opinion of this Court, such signatures do not, by themselves, constitute the completed chargeable instruments without execution of the instrument by the lender. Accordingly, the requisite connection between the taxable event and the taxing jurisdiction arose in Delhi.”
Case Title Delhi Development Authority v. Jaksons Developers (P) Ltd.
Case Number FAO(OS) (COMM) 192/2026
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 1216
The Delhi High Court has recently upheld an order directing the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) to release ₹9.30 crore, along with the interest earned on it, to Jaksons Developers. The company had furnished a performance bank guarantee (PBG) for a hotel project intended to accommodate visitors during the 2010 Commonwealth Games.
A Division Bench of Justice Dinesh Mehta and Dr. Justice Aditi Choudhary held that the interest earned on the fixed deposit could not be withheld after the company was found entitled to the underlying PBG amount.
“According to us, the interest of the FDR is nothing but the fruit of the principal amount of the FDR. Since the principal amount, being the amount of PBG, was ordered to be given to the claimant/JDPL, the interest as a natural corollary should also go to JDPL,” the court observed.
Case Title Viceroy Engineering v. Smiths Detection Veecon Systems Pvt. Ltd
Case Number FAO(OS) (COMM) 45/2026
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 1214
The Delhi High Court has held that approval of invoices does not automatically establish acceptance of a revised fee arrangement. While invoice approvals may be relevant evidence, they do not replace the contractual requirements for changing the agreed rates.
A Division Bench of Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Shail Jain observed that the two forms of approval are distinct.
“Approval of invoices and approval of a revision to the fee arrangement are distinct matters, although evidence of the former may bear upon the latter. This Court cannot assume that the original arrangement governed in order to treat evidence of its replacement as immaterial,” the court held.
The Bench was hearing an appeal by Viceroy Engineering challenging the dismissal of its petition against an arbitral award that rejected its counterclaims against Smiths Detection Veecon Systems.
Case Title M/s. V. K. Jain and Sons v. Neeraj Jain
Case Number EFA(COMM) 5/2025 & CM APPL. 31472/2025
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 1210
The Delhi High Court has recently held that the appointment of an arbitrator by an independent trade association cannot be treated as unilateral merely because one party is a member of the association. It said that even non-members can agree to resolve disputes through an association's arbitration mechanism.
The ruling came as a Division Bench comprising Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Bharat Parashar restored proceedings to enforce an arbitral award in favour of paper wholesaler V.K. Jain & Sons against Neeraj Jain, proprietor of Sarika Enterprises, over unpaid dues of ₹2.18 lakh.
The Bench set aside a Commercial Court order that had declared the arbitral award invalid.
“The distinction between a unilateral appointment by a party and an appointment by an independent third-party body cannot be overlooked. In the former situation, the appointing party itself exercises control over the constitution of the Arbitral Tribunal. In the latter, the appointment is made by an independent body in accordance with the mechanism agreed upon between the parties.”
“However, membership is not, by itself, the only legally permissible basis on which a person may agree to have disputes referred to an arbitral mechanism administered or facilitated by an Association", It added.
Bailiff's Appointment Does Not Bar Post-Award Interim Relief Under Arbitration Act: Delhi High Court
Case Title Facor Alloys Limited Through Its Authorised Representative Sachin Gupta v. Rajadhiraj Tirupani Vinayak Natraj Private Limited
Case Number FAO(OS) (COMM) 295/2026, CM APPL. 74582/2026, 74583/2026 and 74584/2026
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 1193
The Delhi High Court on 29 October held that the appointment of a bailiff by an executing court does not preclude another court from granting post-award interim protection under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, pending enforcement of the arbitral award.
A Bench comprising Justices C. Hari Shankar and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar dismissed an appeal filed by Facor Alloys Limited against an order appointing two Local Commissioners to inspect and prepare an inventory of goods belonging to Rajadhiraj Tirupani Vinayak Natraj Private Limited at Facor's premises. The judges said:
“As such, the fact that a bailiff may have been appointed by the Vishakhapatnam Court cannot be treated as a legal bar to the learned Single Judge having passed the impugned order in exercise of the jurisdiction vested in him by Section 9.”
Madras High Court
Case Title Steel Authority of India Limited v. M/s. Waterbury Farrel & Anr.
Case Number A. No. 955 of 2025 in E.P. SR No. 13383 of 2025
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 342
The Madras High Court has recently held that an arbitral award need not be subjected to the stamp duty impounding process when it merely determines rights and liabilities arising from an existing contract, rather than creating fresh rights or obligations.
A Single Bench of Justice K. Kumaresh Babu made the observation while allowing an application filed by Steel Authority of India Limited (SAIL) in its execution proceedings against Waterbury Farrel and Shriram EPC Limited. The court directed both companies to disclose their movable and immovable properties within six weeks.
The court ruled, "Even though the said Award is termed to be an Instrument, it is to be noted that it does not create a fresh right or liability, but only determines the right and liability flowing out of an instrument voluntarily executed between the parties. In that regard an Award cannot be termed to as an Instrument which falls within the rigour of Section 33 of Indian Stamps Act, for determining the Stamp Duty by following the guidelines to ascertain the value of the document."
Case Title R. Sathyamurthy v. R. Ramsubbu & Others and connected appeals concerning M/s Dinamalar
Case Number O.S.A. Nos. 108, 109, 113, 114, 121, 135, 138, 140, 142 and 144 of 2024; O.S.A. Nos. 154–160 of 2025
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 336
The Madras High Court on 28 October restored two arbitral awards concerning the division of the Dinamalar newspaper business and its assets among family partners, holding that dissolving a partnership firm does not terminate pending arbitration proceedings or render the Arbitral Tribunal functus officio.
A Bench comprising Justices P. Velmurugan and G.K. Muthukumar allowed appeals against a Single Judge's decision to set aside parts of the arbitral awards concerning the dissolution of the family partnership firm that publishes the Tamil newspaper Dinamalar. The judges held:
“The Tribunal was not rendered functus officio merely because the Firm stood dissolved. It could continue the pending proceedings and adjudicate the disputes arising from the dissolution and the inter se rights of the partners.”
Gujarat High Court
Gujarat High Court Flags Underrepresentation Of Women Arbitrators, Urges Wider Representation
Case Title Shilpaben Shah & Ors. v. Jasmin Pravinchandra Shah
Case Number R/Petition Under Arbitration Act Nos. 119 and 123 of 2026
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC (GUJ) 165
The Gujarat High Court has urged parties, lawyers and arbitral institutions to widen the pool of arbitrators to include more qualified women and technical experts, flagging their underrepresentation in court-appointed arbitrations.
The court cited an October 2026 NALSAR study, which found that women accounted for only 29.97% of appointments for which gender was recorded, while technical experts made up just 3.10% of appointments for which professional backgrounds were recorded
A Single Bench of Justice D.N. Ray observed that the underrepresentation deserved attention, while stressing that competence, integrity and independence must remain paramount.
“Without derogating from the primacy of competence, integrity and independence, this Court is of the considered view that such under-representation merits due attention. Parties, counsel and arbitral institutions are, therefore, encouraged to widen the pool from which arbitrators are drawn, so as to include duly qualified women and technical experts.”
Karnataka High Court
Karnataka High Court Refers Exotel-Allin Call Acquisition Dispute To Arbitration In Bengaluru
Case Title Exotel Techcom Private Limited & Anr. v. Aman Goel & Ors.
Case Number Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 564 of 2025
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC(KAR) 215
The Karnataka High Court on 14 October referred to arbitration a dispute between Exotel Techcom Private Limited and former shareholders of Allin Call Research and Solutions Private Limited over alleged violations of a Share Purchase Agreement executed during Exotel's acquisition of the company.
Justice H.T. Narendra Prasad allowed a petition filed by Exotel and Allin Call under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking appointment of a sole arbitrator. The Single-Judge Bench observed:
“Insofar as the contention of the respondents that the Employment Agreement supersedes all prior agreements is concerned, the said clause is applicable only to the earlier Employment Agreement and does not supersede the Share Purchase Agreement.”
Jammu & Kashmir & Ladakh High Court
Case Title Union of India vs M/S Bhagwati Associates
Case Number Arb P No. 45/2025
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC(JAM) 37
An arbitral tribunal conducting proceedings under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, as applicable to the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir, must make its award within 12 months from the date it enters upon the reference and not from the date of completion of pleadings, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has ruled.
Justice Rajesh Sekhri held that the mandate of a sole arbitrator appointed in a Central Public Works Department (CPWD) contractual dispute had terminated after he failed to make the award within the statutory period. The court also held that Jammu was the seat of arbitration, as the contract was awarded and executed there and the cause of action had accrued there.
Explaining the difference between Section 29A(1) of the 1996 Act as applicable to the UT of Jammu and Kashmir and the corresponding provision of the Central Act applicable in the rest of India, the court observed.
“Under Section 29A(1) of the Act of 1996, applicable to the UT of J&K, award is to be made by the Arbitrator within a period of twelve months from the date the Arbitral Tribunal enters upon the reference, whereas under Section 29A(1) of the Act of 1996, applicable to the rest of India, award is to be made by the Arbitral Tribunal within a period of twelve months from the date of completion of pleadings under sub-section (4).”