LiveLawBiz Arbitration Cases Weekly Digest: September 21 - September 27, 2026
Shivani PS
28 Sept 2026 9:36 AM IST
NOMINAL INDEX
Kinetic Green Energy and Power Solutions Limited v. Saera Electric Auto Limited, 2026 LLBiz SC 319
Union of India & Others v. Hariom Projects Pvt. Ltd., 2026 LLBiz SC 316
Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. & Ors. v. M/s GSCO (Gurmeet Singh and Company) Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., 2026 LLBiz SC 315
North Eastern Electric Power Corporation Limited (NEEPCO) v. Astra Construction Private Limited, 2026 LLBiz SC 314
M/s Ahluwalia Contracts (India) Limited (ACIL) v. Airports Authority of India (AAI), 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 1017
Hindustan Shipyard Limited v. M/s Anadolu Deniz Insaat Kizaklari Sanayi Ve Ticaret A.S. & Anr., 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 996
Vipsie Hospitalitys Pvt. Ltd. v. Walianet, 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 1000
Rajesh Kumar v. Union of India & Ors.; M/s Sri Export Co. v. Union of India & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 999
Steel Authority of India Limited v. British Marine PLC, 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 994
SARR Freights Corporation & Anr. v. Argo Coral Maritime Ltd., 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 993
HMT Limited v. C. Rajamma (since deceased) by LRs & Connected Matters, 2026 LLBiz HC(KAR) 169
Nawab Raza And Others v. Usman Khan And Another, 2026 LLBiz HC(MP) 67
Madhav Media Pvt. Ltd. v. LIBRA Productions Pvt. Ltd., 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 273
SEPC Limited (formerly Shriram EPC Limited) v. GPE (India) Ltd. & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 274
Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. v. Danieli and C Officine Meccaniche S.p.A. & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC(APH) 53
Parle Agro Private Limited v. Udayak Agro Products Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 531
Sunfield Global Pte Limited v. Liberty Investments Private Limited, 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 530
State of Odisha and others v. M/s Dhanurdhar Champatiray, Proprietor and Special Class Contractor, Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar, 2026 LLBiz HC (ORI) 24
Gujarat Housing Board v. M/s Cube Construction Engineering Limited, 2026 LLBiz HC (GUJ) 136
Kitply Industries Limited & Ors. v. Reserve Bank of India & Anr., 2026 LLBiz HC(CAL) 234
Supreme Court
Case Title : Kinetic Green Energy and Power Solutions Limited v. Saera Electric Auto Limited
Case Number : Civil Appeal No. 13117 of 2026 arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 31162 of 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz SC 319
The Supreme Court on Thursday referred to arbitration as a dispute between Kinetic Green Energy and Power Solutions Limited and Saera Electric Auto Limited over contractual exclusivity and non-compete obligations.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi appointed former Supreme Court judge Justice R.V. Raveendran as the sole arbitrator.
“Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties, we are of the opinion that the constitution of an Arbitral Tribunal to adjudicate the disputes between the parties would be the appropriate course of action at this stage,” it said.
Appeal Against Rejection Of Interim Relief Cannot Be Remitted To Arbitral Tribunal: Supreme Court
Case Title : Union of India & Others v. Hariom Projects Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number: Civil Appeal of 2026 arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 33087 of 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz SC 316
The Supreme Court has held that a High Court cannot transfer an appeal against rejection of an interim-relief application under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act to an arbitral tribunal and direct the tribunal to treat it as an application for interim measures.
A bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Prasanna B. Varale set aside a Bombay High Court direction to that extent in a dispute between the Union of India and Hariom Projects Pvt. Ltd.
"The appellate jurisdiction under Section 37 is vested exclusively in the “Court” as contemplated under Section 2(1)(e) of the Act. An Arbitral Tribunal exercising powers under Section 17 does not exercise appellate jurisdiction over an order passed by a competent Court under Section 9. Consequently, the effect of the impugned direction would be to require the Arbitral Tribunal to examine the subject matter of a statutory appeal under Section 37 by treating the appellate proceedings as an application under Section 17. The nature and source of the powers exercised by an appellate Court under Section 37 are distinct from the powers conferred upon an Arbitral Tribunal under Section 17 and same cannot be interchanged merely by transmitting or remitting the appellate proceedings to the Tribunal.", the court ruled.
Case Title : MAHANADI COALFIELDS LTD & ORS. VERSUS M/S GSCO (GURMEET SINGH AND COMPANY) INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.
Case Number : SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 2 1 3 7 5 O F 2 0 2 5
Citation : 2026 LLBiz SC 315
The Supreme Court has ruled that a petition challenging an arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act can be filed before a Commercial Court.
Where no Commercial Court has been established, it can be filed before a District Court within the territorial jurisdiction of the concerned High Court.
This is unless the parties have agreed otherwise or a specific arbitral seat has been determined.
A bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva made the observation while allowing Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd's appeal against an Orissa High Court order. The High Court had held that MCL's Section 34 petitions before the District Judge, Sundargarh were not maintainable for want of jurisdiction and were also time barred.
The Supreme Court set aside the June 20, 2025 order and restored the petitions before the Sundargarh court.
“A High Court of a State exercises jurisdiction over the entire State and as such all the Commercial Courts/District Courts (where no commercial Court has been set up) within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court would have jurisdiction to entertain a petition under section 34 of the Act,” the court ruled.
Arbitral Tribunal Erred In Granting Pre-Reference Interest Despite Contractual Bar: Supreme Court
Case Title : North Eastern Electric Power Corporation Limited (NEEPCO) v. Astra Construction Private Limited
Case Number : Civil Appeal of 2026 arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 24803 of 2025 | 2026 INSC 1036
Citation: 2026 LLBiz SC 314
The Supreme Court has set aside a High Court order restoring pre-reference interest to a contractor, holding that the contract barred the grant of such interest.
The arbitral tribunal had awarded ₹3.30 crore on four claims, along with 12% annual pre-reference interest. The Supreme Court held that the tribunal exceeded the bounds of its jurisdiction by awarding the interest despite the contractual bar.
A Bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe allowed North Eastern Electric Power Corporation Limited's (NEEPCO) appeal against Astra Construction Private Limited.
The court set aside the Meghalaya High Court's order restoring pre-reference interest.
HIGH COURTS
Delhi High Court
Appointing Arbitrator Unilaterally Does Not Amount To Waiving Ineligibility: Delhi High Court
Case Title : M/s Ahluwalia Contracts (India) Limited (ACIL) v. Airports Authority of India (AAI)
Case Number : FAO(OS) (COMM) 246/2026, CM APPL. 61809/2026 & CM APPL. 61810/2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 1017
The Delhi High Court has held that a party's unilateral appointment of an arbitrator cannot by itself amount to an express waiver of the arbitrator's statutory ineligibility under Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
A Division Bench of Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Vimal Kumar Yadav upheld the setting aside of an arbitral award partly in favour of Ahluwalia Contracts (India) Limited (ACIL), despite the Airports Authority of India (AAI) having appointed the arbitrator and participated in the arbitration for nearly four years.
The court observed, “The mere fact that the appointment was made by AAI does not amount to an express agreement in writing by both parties to waive the applicability of Section 12(5) of the A&C Act. The act of appointment and the statutory waiver contemplated by the proviso operate in distinct fields and cannot be equated with each other.”
Case Title : Hindustan Shipyard Limited Versus M/S Anadolu Deniz Insaat Kizaklari Sanayi Ve Ticaret A.S. & Anr.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 1008/2026, I.A. 25198/2026, I.A. 25199/2026 & I.A. 25200/2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 996
The Delhi High Court on 18 September directed that arbitral proceedings initiated by Turkish company Anadolu Deniz against Hindustan Shipyard Limited (HSL) before the Indian Council of Arbitration (ICA) be kept in abeyance.
Justice Tushar Rao Gedela passed the direction on HSL's application for interim protection after finding prima facie that the Union Government's decision to exclude Anadolu Deniz from a project for construction of Fleet Support Ships for the Indian Navy was a sovereign decision concerning national security and defence procurement, and therefore non-arbitrable. The Bench observed:
“Surely, if internal security is a sovereign function, then national security, and matters related to defence procurement for the armed forces would clearly fall within the expression “sovereign function”, and the decision taken in such context could be expressed as “sovereign decision”...Having regard to the above analysis and facts, it is clear that the decision of the GoI dated 23.08.2023 is a “decision of the Sovereign”, and in view of the ratio in Vidya Drolia (supra), “non arbitrable”, per se.”
Case Title : Vipsie Hospitalitys Pvt. Ltd. v. Walianet
Case Numbe : CM(M) 1573/2023 & CM APPL. 30269/2024
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 1000
The Delhi High Court on 16 September directed the court which heard Vipsie Hospitalitys Pvt. Ltd.'s challenge to an arbitral award to decide its application seeking perjury proceedings over allegedly forged documents within three months.
Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora held that Vipsie had correctly filed the Section 340 Cr.P.C. application before the court hearing its Section 34 petition against the arbitral award in its dispute with Walianet. The Court also settled that court's jurisdiction to hear the application. The Bench observed:
“In the considered opinion of this Court, the liberty granted to the Petitioner to seek initiation of appropriate proceedings for perjury against the authorized representative of the Respondent, post conclusion of the arbitration proceedings, have been correctly initiated, by the Petitioner, by filing Section 340 Cr.P.C. application before the Court hearing Section 34 petition under the Act of 1996 i.e., in OMP(COMM) 24/2023.”
Unable To Pay Arbitration Fees? Law Provides No Waiver On Financial Grounds: Delhi High Court
Case Title : Rajesh Kumar v. Union of India & Ors.; M/s Sri Export Co. v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 13882/2026 & W.P.(C) 13884/2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 999
The Delhi High Court has ruled that an arbitral tribunal cannot ordinarily be required to continue adjudicating a claim or counter-claim when the requisite deposit towards arbitration costs has not been paid.
“The statutory scheme, therefore, recognises that an Arbitral Tribunal cannot ordinarily be required to continue adjudicating upon a claim or counter-claim in the absence of the requisite deposit towards the costs of such proceedings,” Justice Amit Mahajan ruled.
The ruling came while dismissing petitions by Rajesh Kumar and Sri Export Co. They had sought waiver or deferment of their share of arbitrator's fees and Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC) administrative charges in separate arbitrations.
Maritime Arbitrator's Prior Ruling On Similar Clause Does Not Establish Bias: Delhi High Court
Case Title : Steel Authority of India Limited v. British Marine PLC
Case Number : FAO(OS) (COMM) 17/2026 & CM APPL. 6374/2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 994
The Delhi High Court on 17 September held that an arbitrator does not become disqualified merely because they previously decided a similar issue in another maritime arbitration involving one of the parties, particularly where specialised maritime disputes draw from a limited pool of domain experts.
A Division Bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Vikas Mahajan upheld the arbitral award in favour of UK-based British Marine PLC and dismissed Steel Authority of India Limited's (SAIL) appeal against a Single Judge's order upholding the award. The Bench held:
“A maritime contract by its very nature requires domain knowledge for quick adjudication. Merely because an Arbitrator has served in another maritime arbitration which involves interpretation of the same or a similar clause by itself cannot raise justifiable doubts as to the independence or impartiality of an Arbitrator.”
Prior Negotiations Cannot Add Arbitration Clause To Signed Contract: Delhi HIgh Court
Case Title : SARR Freights Corporation & Anr. v. Argo Coral Maritime Ltd.
Case Number: FAO(OS) 40/2026 & CM APPL. 19846/2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 993
The Delhi High Court has recently held that prior negotiations and correspondence cannot be used to add an arbitration clause to a clear and unambiguous agreement signed by the parties.
A Division Bench of Justice Vivek Chaudhary and Justice Renu Bhatnagar observed, “It is only where the language is not clear, ambiguous or defective that the surrounding circumstances or other evidence may be looked into, to explain or supply its meaning. The Court is, therefore, barred from relying upon prior negotiations, correspondence or communications to contradict, vary, add to or subtract, from clear and unambiguous terms of the written agreement. The true construction of the contract must depend upon the import of the words used therein, and the intention of the parties is to be ascertained from the language of the agreement itself.”
Karnataka High Court
Case Title : HMT Limited v. C. Rajamma (since deceased) by LRs & Connected Matters
Case Number : MFA No. 9565 of 2018 c/w MFA Nos. 9564, 9566–9571 of 2018
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(KAR) 169
The Karnataka High Court has modified the interest payable by HMT on ₹1.39 crore in damages awarded to eight former employees-turned-entrepreneurs for the loss caused by a shortfall in the assured workload.
The entrepreneurs will get 20% annual interest on the damages only for the period during which they were repaying their Karnataka State Financial Corporation (KSFC) loans. For the remaining period, HMT will have to pay interest at 12% per annum.
A Division Bench of Justice Anu Sivaraman and Justice T.P. Vivekananda held that the higher rate could not continue after the KSFC loan liability was discharged.
“The grant of interest at the rate of 20% per annum could be held reasonable only for the period during which the respondents/claimants have repaid the loan amount to KSFC. Once the financial liability of KSFC is discharged, there was no liability of the claimants to pay interest on the loan amount.”, it ruled.
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Case Title : Nawab Raza And Others Versus Usman Khan And Another
Case Number : Misc. Appeal No. 6075 Of 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(MP) 67
On 16 September, the Madhya Pradesh High Court held that where a party challenges the very execution and validity of a partnership deed containing an arbitration clause on grounds of fraud, conspiracy and lack of informed consent, the existence of a valid arbitration agreement must be examined before the dispute can be referred to arbitration.
Justice Ramkumar Choubey dismissed a miscellaneous appeal against the 23rd District Judge, Bhopal's order restoring a civil suit after setting aside the Trial Court's direction to refer the dispute to arbitration, noting that the plaintiff was challenging the partnership deed itself, including its execution and the alleged procurement of his signature through fraud and conspiracy. The Bench observed:
“At this stage, this Court is not required to finally adjudicate upon the truthfulness of the allegations of fraud and conspiracy, nor is it required to record a final finding regarding the validity of the partnership deed. Nevertheless, for the limited purpose of determining the forum in which the foundational dispute is required to be adjudicated, the allegations contained in the plaint, the nature of the disputed document and the other attending facts and circumstances cannot be brushed aside as a mere allegation of fraud simpliciter.”
Madras High Court
Madras High Court Enforces ₹13.31 Crore Award Against LIBRA Productions After Challenge Period Ends
Case Title : Madhav Media Pvt. Ltd. v. LIBRA Productions Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : EP No. 8 of 2026 in Arbitration O.P. No. 595 of 2024
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 273
The Madras High Court on 17 September allowed Madhav Media Pvt. Ltd.'s execution petition seeking the arrest of LIBRA Productions Pvt. Ltd. for enforcement of a Rs. 13.31 crore arbitral award.
Justice K. Kumaresh Babu held that once the limitation period for challenging an arbitral award expires, the award becomes final and enforceable between the parties, and a party cannot resist enforcement by subsequently questioning the arbitrator's appointment. The Bench observed:
“In such an event, the award had become final between the parties and the Decree Holder is entitled to enforce the award. Even though the Judgment Debtor claims that the Bank accounts had been frozen by the Investigating Agency and the title deeds have been deposited by him, no proof of such order being passed has been placed before this Court, nor had he taken any steps for defreezing the account.”
Madras High Court Says It Cannot “Bow Down” To NPA Threat, Upholds Attachment Against SEPC, Twarit
Case Title : SEPC Limited (formerly Shriram EPC Limited) v. GPE (India) Ltd. & Ors.
Case Number : A.No.1812 of 2026 in E.P.No.91 of 2023
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 274
On 21 September, the Madras High Court dismissed SEPC Limited's plea to recall or keep in abeyance the attachment of Rs. 154.63 crore in trade receivables during enforcement of a foreign arbitral award against SEPC and Twarit Consultancy Services Private Limited.
Justice K. Kumaresh Babu refused to lift or keep the attachment in abeyance, holding that the Court could not “bow down” to the argument that its continuation could affect the companies' business or lead to their assets being classified as non-performing assets. The Bench observed:
“The arguments made by the Judgment Debtors as well as the Consortium banks is the nature of intimidation that if the order of attachment is continued, the Judgment Debtors would fall as non-performing assets which would not be helpful for any of the parties. An attempt had been made by the first Judgment Debtor that it is a going concern and if the order of attachment continues, it would have to lose its business if the trade receivables are not re-infused into the Company for further operation.”
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case Title : Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. v. Danieli and C Officine Meccaniche S.p.A. & Ors.
Case Number : I.C.O.M.A.O.A. No. 1 of 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(APH) 53
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that the courts at Visakhapatnam have jurisdiction to hear Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd.'s challenge to an arbitral award, despite the arbitral tribunal later recording New Delhi as the seat of arbitration.
Justice Balaji Medamalli observed that the parties had agreed to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Visakhapatnam courts while separately providing for different venues for conducting the arbitration.
“In the instant case, Article 18 of the agreement clearly stipulates that the Courts at Visakhapatnam shall have exclusive jurisdiction, which would exclude the parties from contending that the seat of arbitration is at somewhere else. The agreement, after excluding all other Courts except the Courts at Visakhapatnam, stated that the venue may be at a different place,” the court held.
Bombay High Court
Bombay High Court Restrains Parle Agro's Franchisee From Selling SURE Water Competing With BAILLEY
Case Title : Parle Agro Private Limited v. Udayak Agro Products Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
Case Number : Commercial Arbitration Petition (L) No. 25994 of 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 531
The Bombay High Court has granted interim protection to Parle Agro Private Limited in its arbitration dispute with its franchisee Udayak Agro Products Pvt. Ltd. and Udayak's connected entity, K.L. Beverages LLP, over the manufacture and sale of competing packaged drinking water.
Justice Amit Borkar found a prima facie case that the manufacture of SURE water by K.L. Beverages was covered by the indirect competition restrictions in Parle Agro's franchise agreement with Udayak.
The court found that Parle Agro had made out a prima facie case that the competing packaged drinking water activity carried on through K.L. Beverages was covered by the indirect competition restrictions in Udayak Agro's 2014 franchise agreement.
The court observed, “The Court has to see all the material together. If every document is looked at separately, the Respondents may have some explanation for each circumstance. But the combined effect of the material cannot be ignored.”
Case Title : Sunfield Global Pte Limited v. Liberty Investments Private Limited
Case Number : Commercial Arbitration Appeal (L) No. 1634 of 2026 in Commercial Arbitration Petition (L) No. 34540 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 530
On Tuesday, 22 September, the Bombay High Court held that interim relief granted by a foreign arbitral tribunal may be rendered ineffective in India where there is no direct mechanism to enforce such an order.
A Division Bench of Justices A.S. Gadkari and Kamal Khata allowed an appeal by Singapore-based Sunfield Global Pte Limited against Liberty Investments Private Limited, set aside a Single Judge's order refusing interim protection and directed Liberty to secure Sunfield's admitted USD 66,92,500 claim. The judges observed:
“There is a high likelihood of such interim measures or protection being rendered otiose by the time this process is completed, rendering it ineffective altogether. This would involve three distinct rounds of litigation, which would be a cumbersome and wholly inefficacious as compared to approaching this Court in a Section 9 Petition.”
Orissa High Court
Writ Against Order U/S 37 Arbitration Act Not Barred By Second Appeal Restriction: Orissa High Court
Case Title : State of Odisha and others versus M/s.Dhanurdhar Champatiray, Proprietor and Special Class Contractor, Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar
Case Number : W.P.(C) No.35289, 35291, 35309, 35312, 35317 of 2025 And W.P.(C) No.3223, 44, 6384 & 8151 of 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (ORI) 24
The Orissa High Court on 21 September held that a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution can be maintained against an order passed by a District Judge under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, despite Section 37(3) barring a second appeal.
Justice B.P. Routray rejected the preliminary objection to the maintainability of the writ petitions filed by the state and other, holding that the High Court's constitutional jurisdiction does not constitute a second appellate remedy. The Bench observed:
“it would be incorrect to refuse the Petitioners to approach this Court under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India to challenge the order of the District Judge passed under Section 37(1) of 1996 Act. Thus, the preliminary objection raised by the Opposite Parties with regard to maintainability of the writ petitions in terms of Section 37(3) of 1996 Act is overruled.”
Gujarat High Court
Case Title : Gujarat Housing Board v. M/s. Cube Construction Engineering Limited
Case Number : R/First Appeal No. 4171 of 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (GUJ) 136
The Gujarat High Court on 18 September held that courts can impose costs to deter casual challenges to arbitral awards, observing that frivolous applications under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 burden courts with unnecessary litigation.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice D.N. Ray dismissed the Gujarat Housing Board's challenge to a Rs. 3.97 crore arbitral award in favour of Cube Construction Engineering Ltd. and imposed Rs. 3 lakh costs on the Board. The judges observed:
“The casual filing of applications under Sections 34 and 37 of the Act, 1996 burdening the Courts with unnecessary and frivolous litigation, needs to be curbed forthwith. The only deterrent which comes in our mind is imposition of costs by Courts under Section 34 as well as in 37 proceedings, at par with the arbitration costs which is imposed upon the losing party in accordance with the provisions of 31A of Act, 1996.”
Calcutta High Court
Pending Arbitration Does Not Bar Wilful Defaulter Proceedings Against Borrower: Calcutta High Court
Case Title : Kitply Industries Limited & Ors. v. Reserve Bank of India & Anr.
Case Number : W.P.A. No. 24869 of 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(CAL) 234
On 23 September, the Calcutta High Court held that the pendency of arbitration proceedings cannot prevent a lender from issuing a show-cause notice to declare a borrower a wilful defaulter.
Justice Krishna Rao dismissed Kitply Industries' writ petition challenging SREI Equipment Finance Ltd.'s (SEFL) show-cause notice alleging that it had disposed of assets securing its credit facility without the lender's approval. The Bench observed:
“Pendency of the arbitration proceeding could not debar the issuance of show cause notice"