LiveLawBiz Arbitration Monthly Digest: May, 2026
Shivani PS
2 Jun 2026 11:12 AM IST
Supreme Court
Case Title: M/S PARAMOUNT LEARNING SOLUTIONS AND ORS. Versus AAKASH EDUCATIONAL SERVICES LTD.
Case Number: Diary No. 22100-2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz SC 173
The Supreme Court of India on Tuesday dismissed a plea by Paramount Learning Solutions in a franchise dispute involving an Aakash Educational Services Ltd. coaching centre.
It declined to interfere with the Delhi High Court's judgment of August 7, 2025, which had upheld an arbitral award in favour of Aakash.
A Bench of Justices P.S. Narasimha and Alok Aradhe declined to interfere with the High Court's ruling. The High Court had affirmed an arbitral award relating to the operation of an Aakash coaching centre at Pathankot. It directed Paramount Learning Solutions to pay about Rs. 66.31 lakh to Aakash.
Appearing for Paramount Learning Solutions, counsel contended that the arbitral award was contrary to the terms of the 2016 franchise agreement and suffered from patent illegality. It was argued that the award ignored the contractual framework between the parties and granted monetary reliefs contrary to the contractual scheme.
However, the bench was not inclined to interfere with the High Court's order. It dismissed the petition.
Supreme Court Stays Arbitration In ₹36.53 Crore AP E-Challan Dispute Involving Digi Yatra Developer
Case Title: The State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. M/s Dataevolve Solutions Pvt Limited
Case Number: Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No. 9572/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz SC 169
The Supreme Court recently stayed further arbitration proceedings in a Rs. 36.53 crore dispute between the Andhra Pradesh government and Dataevolve Solutions Pvt. Ltd., the developer of the Digi Yatra app, over settlement of accounts under an e-challan software contract.
A Bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant and comprising Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi issued notice on the State's special leave petition challenging the Andhra Pradesh High Court's order appointing a sole arbitrator, as well as on its applications seeking condonation of delay. The Court directed that further arbitration proceedings shall remain stayed and listed the matter for May 25, 2026.
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The Supreme Court on Friday held that under the now-repealed Arbitration Act, 1940, parties to a pending civil suit could not validly refer their dispute to arbitration without jointly approaching the court where the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.
Supreme Court Asks Delhi HC To Dispose Patanjali-Ashav Arbitration Dispute Over Ruchi Soya Deal
Case Title: PATANJALI AYURVED LIMITED AND ORS. Versus ASHAV ADVISORY LLP
Case Number: Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 17525/2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz SC 196
The Supreme Court recently asked the Delhi High Court to take up for disposal the pending arbitration dispute between Patanjali Ayurved Ltd and Ashav Advisory LLP over a share transaction linked to the acquisition of Ruchi Soya Industries.
A Bench of Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Alok Aradhe requested the High Court to decide the pending petitions at the next date of hearing, scheduled for July 28.
“We had earlier recorded in our order dated 07.01.2026 that Section 34 objections were listed for hearing on 11.02.2026. It appears that the matter could be taken up for one reason or the another. Mr. C.A. Sundaram, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner(s) submits that petition under Section 36 of the Act is also pending consideration before the High Court. We request the High Court to take up Section 34/36 petitions for disposal on the next date of hearing which is scheduled for 28.07.2026,” the bench observed.
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.
Case Title : Elecon Engineering Company Limited Versus Bhartiya Rail Bijlee Company Limited & Anr.
Case Number: Special Leave Petition (C) No.33128 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz SC 181
The Supreme Court has held that a collaborator whose technical expertise was essential for a contractor to qualify for a project bid can invoke the arbitration clause in the principal contract.This would apply where the collaborator's role makes it effectively a party to the agreement.
“The meetings convened between the Employer, the Contractor and the Collaborator, after delay in execution of the contract, the tripartite agreement entered into between them and the further communications addressed to the collaborator to take up his responsibility as per the DJU makes the Collaborator a veritable party to the contract who is also entitled to invoke the arbitration clause as available in the contract between the Contractor and the Employer in which the DJU executed by the Collaborator and the Contractor, in favour of the Employer is an inextricable part.”, it held.
High Courts
Delhi High Court
Case Title: Ocean View Properties LLP v. Baleshwar Sharma & Ors.
Case Number: ARB. A. (COMM.) 62/2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 449
The Delhi High Court has reiterated that where an arbitral tribunal rejects a jurisdictional objection, including to the impleadment of a non-signatory, the challenge to such a decision can be raised only after the tribunal proceeds with the arbitration and makes an award.
On this basis, the court dismissed as not maintainable an appeal filed by Ocean View Properties LLP against an order of the arbitral tribunal impleading it as a party to the proceedings, even though it was not a signatory to the arbitration agreement.
Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar observed that “the statutory mandate necessitates that any challenge mounted to an order passed in exercise of powers relatable to Section 16 must remain circumscribed by Section 16(5) of the Act, and any challenge thereto would be permissible only at the stage contemplated therein.”
Amazon- Future Coupons Reach Settlement; Delhi High Court Disposes Challenge To SIAC Award
Case Title: Future Coupons Private Limited & Ors. v. Amazon.com NV Investment Holdings LLC & Ors.
Case Number: O.M.P. (COMM) 458/2025 & connected matters
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 443
The Delhi High Court on Tuesday permitted withdrawal of petitions filed by Future Coupons Private Limited and promoter entities, including Ashni Kishore Biyani, against a Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) award in their dispute with Amazon.
The award had held them in breach of contractual obligations and directed them to pay Rs 23.7 crore in damages, along with Rs 77.3 crore and SGD 68,550 towards costs, but the challenge was withdrawn after the parties entered into a settlement agreement dated March 13, 2026.
Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar recorded that “learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties are ad idem that the disputes between the parties stand resolved and the settlement has been formally reduced into a Settlement Agreement dated 13.03.2026.”
Case Title: PTC Techno Pvt. Ltd. v. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number: O.M.P. (COMM) 129/2019
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 429
The Delhi High Court has recently set aside a 2018 arbitral award arising out of disputes between PTC Techno Pvt. Ltd. and Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., holding that the appointment of the arbitrator by an official of Samsung was legally impermissible.
A Single Bench of Justice Avneesh Jhingan held that the sole arbitrator, Justice Sunil Ambwani (Retd.), had been appointed by the Vice President of the respondent company, which was contrary to Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Court ruled that such an appointment is void ab initio and renders the arbitral proceedings and award a nullity.
“After amendment of Section 12(5) of the Act an employee of a party in dispute can neither be appointed arbitrator nor can nominate or appoint any other person as an arbitrator. The unilateral appointment in absence of an express agreement in writing by the parties to waive applicability of Section 12(5) of the Act is void ab initio," the court observed.
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 said.
Case Title : Pandrol Rahee Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. IRCON International Ltd.
Case Number : O.M.P. (COMM) 414/2023
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 518
The Delhi High Court on 20 May upheld an arbitral award rejecting Pandrol Rahee Technologies Pvt. Ltd.'s claim for additional payment from IRCON International Ltd. for supplying extra components for ballastless track fastening systems, holding that the contract remained a fixed-price “set-based” agreement despite variations in quantity.
Justice Avneesh Jhingan observed that, “if the argument is taken to its logical end, it would mean that upon variation, the contract would change from a set-based to a component-based contract, which the parties never contemplated.”
Arbitration Case-Management Orders Are Not Open To Section 34 Challenge: Delhi High Court
Case Title : Cinda Engineering and Construction Private Limited v. CY Engineering India Private Limited
Case Number : O.M.P. (COMM) 67/2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 506
The Delhi High Court on 12 May held that procedural and case-management directions passed in arbitral proceedings, including orders refusing amendment of pleadings or additional document production, do not amount to an “interim award” under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 unless they finally determine substantive rights between the parties.
Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar dismissed a petition filed by Cinda Engineering and Construction Private Limited challenging an arbitral tribunal order that had refused to permit amendment of pleadings and production of additional documents in an ongoing arbitration against CY Engineering India Private Limited. He observed:
“The legislative architecture underlying the expression “award”, whether final or interim, necessarily postulates an adjudicatory determination possessing the attributes of conclusiveness, finality and enforceability in respect of a substantive component of the lis between the parties. Mere procedural consequences, however significant in their practical effect, do not by themselves elevate an interlocutory order to the status of an interim award.”
Case Title: Sarvesh Security Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Institute of Human Behavior Resource and Allied Sciences
Case Number : O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 557/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 516
The Delhi High Court has extended an arbitrator's mandate after an arbitral award had already been pronounced, holding that an extension cannot be refused merely because it would eliminate a ground to challenge the award.
Justice Avneesh Jhingan observed, “Merely as the outcome of the arbitration proceedings was known to the parties and with extension of the mandate one of the ground to challenge award under Section 34 of the Act may not survive, cannot be the consideration for rejection of the prayer for extension more so, on court being satisfied that sufficient cause exists.”
Arbitral Tribunal Need Not Seek MSME Council Approval Before Passing Final Award: Delhi High Court
Case Title : Dewan and Sons and Ors Vs Harsh International
Case Number: O.M.P. (COMM) 237/2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 526
The Delhi High Court has held that the MSMED Act and the Arbitration and Conciliation Act do not envisage any intermediary mechanism requiring an arbitral institution to submit a recommendatory report to a Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council for approval or confirmation.
Once a dispute is referred by the Council under the MSMED Act, the arbitral institution can independently render a final arbitral award, the Court held.
Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar dismissed a challenge to an award passed through the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC) in an MSME payment dispute between M/s Harsh International and M/s Dewan and Sons.
“Neither the MSMED Act nor the provisions of the A&C Act envisage any intermediate or hybrid procedure whereby the arbitral institution merely renders a recommendatory report or opinion to the Council for eventual approval, confirmation, or pronouncement of an award by the Council itself No such statutory requirement, procedure, or supervisory mechanism can be culled out either from the language of Section 18(3) of the MSMED Act or from the scheme of the A&C Act," the Court said.
Case Title : Hazel Mercantile Ltd. v Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.
Case Number : O.M.P. (Comm) 36/2023 & I.A. 1770/2023
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 537
The Delhi High Court on 22 April upheld an arbitral award arising from a supply contract between Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOCL) and Hazel Mercantile Ltd, where the arbitrator had granted nominal damages of Rs. 25,000.
Justice Avneesh Jhingan held that a mere price difference does not, by itself, establish proof of loss and declined to interfere under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. He observed:
“The quantification of the nominal damages is a discretion exercised by the arbitrator in the facts and circumstances of the case calling for no interference under Section 34 of the Act.”
Case Title : Prem Lata Surekha v Chakradhari Surekha
Case Number: FAO(OS) (COMM) 70/2025 & CM APPL. 24573/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 535
The Delhi High Court, in a family partnership dispute, has held that timelines introduced under the amended arbitration law for passing arbitral awards would not apply since arbitration had first been invoked before the amendment came into force.
The 2015 amendment introduced a 12-month deadline for arbitral tribunals to make an award from the date they entered upon reference, extendable by six months with parties' consent.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Madhu Jain held, “Under such circumstances, the arbitration clause having been invoked prior to the Amendment Act, 2015 coming into existence, the time limits stipulated under Section 29A of the Act would not be applicable to the facts of this case.”
The court dismissed an appeal filed by Prem Lata Surekha challenging an arbitral award in favour of Chakradhari Surekha. It also imposed costs of Rs 1 lakh on her, noting that she had rejected reasonable proposals for amicable resolution and that her conduct was not bona fide.
Re-Filing Delays In Commercial Cases Must Be Treated As Seriously As Filing Delays: Delhi High Court
Case Title: DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs INTEGRATED TECHNO SYSTEMS PVT LTD
Case Number: CM APPLs. 52264/2025, 52265/2025 & 52266/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 536
The Delhi High Court has dismissed an appeal by the Delhi Development Authority against a Commercial Court judgment upholding an arbitral award, refusing to condone delays in filing and re-filing the matter.
A Division Bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla underscored the need for strict adherence to timelines in commercial disputes arising from arbitral proceedings.
“It is also settled that, in commercial matters, delay in re-filing has also to be treated with nearly with same seriousness as delay in filing.” , It noted.
The Court also reiterated that administrative lethargy by government bodies cannot justify condonation of delay.
“Keeping in mind the standards laid down by the Supreme Court in the judgements cited supra, we regret that we are unable to regard the explanation as sufficient to condone the delay in filing the appeal.”It added.
Case Title : M/s Gowra Petrochem Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s Alfa Chem & Ors.
Case Number: OMP (ENF.) (COMM.) 215/2019
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 531
The Delhi High Court has refused to enforce an arbitral award, holding that the absence of a challenge to the award under Arbitration Act does not automatically make it enforceable if it is void for lack of jurisdiction.
Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar passed the ruling.
“In the present case, the position regarding unilateral appointment of the learned Sole Arbitrator is not even disputed by the Decree Holder. Equally undisputed is the absence of any express waiver in writing, as contemplated under the proviso to Section 12(5) of the A&C Act. Once the very constitution of the Arbitral Tribunal stands vitiated by reason of such unilateral appointment, the resultant Arbitral Award cannot be regarded as a legally enforceable adjudication in the eyes of law," the Court observed.
Arbitration Is Founded On Party Autonomy; Tribunal Bound By Contract: Delhi High Court
Case Title: MMTC Limited v. M/s Knowledge Infrastructure & Anr.
Case Number: FAO(OS)(COMM) 109/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 528
The Delhi High Court has set aside a Single Judge order that upheld an arbitral award directing MMTC to release ₹2.21 crore to Knowledge Infrastructure, holding that the arbitral tribunal ignored the express terms of the parties' contract
A Division Bench of Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Amit Mahajan ruled, “The Tripartite Agreement does not stipulate that the Appellant must first discharge liabilities attributable to Respondent No.1 and thereafter seek reimbursement through a separate indemnificatory mechanism. Thus, such an interpretation by the SB travels beyond the four corners of the Agreement.”
The Court also underscored that “arbitration proceedings are founded upon party autonomy” and that the arbitral tribunal, “being a creature of the contract, remains bound by the allocation of rights and liabilities consciously agreed upon between the parties.”
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.”
Case Title: Parveen Kapoor & Ors. and Omaxe Limited
Case Number: FAO (OS) (COMM) 50/2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 459
The Delhi High Court has upheld an order setting aside an arbitral award that granted buyers of a commercial unit about ₹1.05 lakh per month as assured returns from Omaxe Limited, after finding that the arbitrator had granted relief on a claim that was no longer part of the arbitration.
Explaining why, a Division Bench of Justices V. Kameswar Rao and Vinod Kumar held that the arbitrator “erred in awarding the AMR as compensation as it was beyond his jurisdiction,” noting that once the claim was withdrawn, “it goes out of the hands of the Arbitrator” and cannot be reintroduced in arbitral proceedings.
Case Title : SPICEJET LIMITED vs KAL AIRWAYS PVT LTD & ORS
Case Number : O.M.P. (COMM) 42/2019
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 458
The Delhi High Court on Monday dismissed review petitions filed by SpiceJet Ltd and its promoter Ajay Singh, refusing to modify its March 18, 2026 order and grant further time, thereby requiring compliance with directions to deposit ₹144.51 crore in an arbitration dispute with Kal Airways Pvt. Ltd.
Justice Subramonium Prasad held that subsequent developments such as the outbreak of hostilities in West Asia cannot be used to avoid compliance with binding judicial directions or as a ground for review.
“The hostilities which broke out in February-March, 2026 cannot be used to the advantage of the Review Petitioners and at the cost of repetition, it is made clear that this Court was not prepared to accept the offer given by the Review Petitioners for deposit of the title deeds of the Spicejet‟s Property in lieu of the arbitral amount as in the opinion of this Court, the said offer could not be a proper compliance of the Orders of the Apex Court.”
Unenforceable Foreign Arbitral Award Does Not Extinguish Original Cause Of Action: Delhi High Court
Case Title : Campos Brothers Farms v. Matru Bhumi Supply Chain Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Case Number : RFA(OS)(COMM) 3/2025'
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 465
The Delhi High Court has reiterated that a foreign arbitral award that has been found unenforceable in India does not extinguish the original civil claim between parties, while restoring a recovery suit filed by a U.S.-based almond supplier.
A Division Bench of Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Amit Mahajan held, “the cause of action for recovery of the amount claimed does not cease to exist merely because a foreign arbitral award has been passed, particularly when such award has been held to be unenforceable in India. An unenforceable foreign award cannot, by itself, extinguish the underlying civil cause of action, as such award has failed to secure recovery of the amount in favour of the claimant"
Case Title: MBL Infrastructure Ltd v. M/s Pradeep Colonisers and Suppliers Pvt Ltd
Case Number: O.M.P. (COMM) 469/2025 & connected matters
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 468
The Delhi High Court has held that claims that are not part of an approved insolvency resolution plan cannot later be revived through arbitration.
Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar observed:
“Once the corporate insolvency resolution process attains finality within the statutory framework contemplated under the IBC, the claims of all stakeholders stand crystallized and are thereafter governed exclusively by the terms of the Resolution Plan. Such claims cannot be revived, re-agitated, or pursued through proceedings outside the insolvency mechanism. The contrary view adopted by the learned Arbitral Tribunal, which permits the resurrection of such claims in arbitral proceedings, runs counter to the legislative intent and the settled legal position, and is therefore liable to be set aside."
Arbitration Clause Signed By Only One Party Invalid, Award Unenforceable: Delhi High Court
Case Title : Matsya Fincap Pvt Ltd Versus Govind Lal
Case Number: EFA(COMM) 8/2024
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 466
The Delhi High Court on 5 May held that an arbitration clause contained in a document signed by only one party does not constitute a valid arbitration agreement under Section 7 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, in the absence of material demonstrating mutual consent to arbitrate.
A Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Amit Mahajan further held that an arbitral award founded on such a defective agreement is a nullity and incapable of execution and upheld the Executing Court's order refusing enforcement of the award. It held:
“It is not in dispute that the said acknowledgment letter bears the signature of the Respondent but does not bear the signature of the Appellant. Therefore, it does not satisfy the requirement of a 'document signed by the parties' under Section 7(4)(a) of the A&C Act.”
Case Title : Sunder Lal Gupta v. M/s Sahyog Hospitality & Ors.
Case Number: OMP (ENF.) (COMM.) 284/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 455
The Delhi High Court has held that interim orders passed by an arbitral tribunal cannot be independently enforced in cases where they stand subsumed into a final arbitral award covering the same subject matter, holding that such directions must thereafter be enforced only under the statutory framework governing arbitral awards.
Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar dismissed an enforcement petition filed by Sunder Lal Gupta, ruling that the interim direction requiring Sahyog Hospitality to deposit 81.25% of monthly mesne profits could not be executed once it stood merged into the final award.
“Where the directions contained in an interim order are effectively subsumed into the operative part of the Final Award, the enforcement of such directions must thereafter be governed by the regime applicable to the enforcement of arbitral awards. Consequently, the provisions of Sections 34(3) and 36(1) of the A&C Act must be allowed to operate in their full play, without being circumvented through parallel enforcement proceedings under Section 17(2) of the A&C Act," the bench observed.
Arbitrator Cannot “Conjure” Mesne Profit Figure Solely On “Guesswork”: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Radiance Infracon and Developers Pvt. Ltd. v GLS Infratech Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : FAO(OS) (COMM) 156/2024, CM APPL. 43047/2024
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 472
The Delhi High Court on 13 April held that an arbitral tribunal cannot award mesne profits solely on “guesswork” without any foundational material or reasoning supporting the quantification and clarified that while exact proof of unliquidated damages is not necessary, the award must disclose a rational basis linking the material on record to the amount awarded.
A Division Bench of Justices Om Prakash Shukla and C. Hari Shankar upheld an order setting aside the arbitral award to the extent it granted mesne profits to Radiance Infracon and Developers Pvt. Ltd. against GLS Infratech Pvt. Ltd. and dismissed the appeal filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. It observed:
“While exactitude in proof of damages is not insisted upon, the adjudicatory process must nevertheless disclose a rational nexus between the material available and figure ultimately awarded or atleast some line of reasoning in mind of the learned Arbitrator to justify the reasonability of the figure.”
Delhi High Court Partly Sets Aside Award Denying FDR Interest Despite Invalid PBG Invocation
Case Title: Jaksons Developers (P) Ltd Versus Delhi Development Authority
Case Number: O.M.P. (COMM) 349/2023
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 467
The Delhi High Court has held that the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) cannot retain interest accrued on a fixed deposit created from a Performance Bank Guarantee (PBG) amount after an arbitral tribunal held that DDA was not entitled to invoke the PBG.
The PBG had been furnished by Jaksons Developers in connection with allotment of a commercial plot by DDA for construction of a hotel project for the 2010 Commonwealth Games.
Justice Avneesh Jhingan said:
“The realised amount along with interest accrued on FDR was subject to outcome of the arbitration proceedings.”
The court observed that the arbitrator, after holding that DDA could not have invoked or encashed the PBG, had no basis to segregate the principal amount from the interest accrued on the FDR.
Case Title : The Atlas Electric Industries Pvt Ltd v. M/s Polotrips India (P) Ltd & Anr.
Case Number: ARB.P. 1742/2025 with O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 271/2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 473
The Delhi High Court on 4 May held that a party described only as a “Confirming Party” or merely having signatory status in an agreement cannot invoke the arbitration clause unless the contract expressly grants such a right.
Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar dismissed petitions filed by The Atlas Electric Industries Pvt. Ltd. seeking interim protection and appointment of an arbitrator in a dispute concerning an industrial plot in Haryana. He held:
“The arbitration clause, in express terms, does not include the Confirming Party within the category of parties entitled to invoke arbitral proceedings. Once the explicit stipulations of the Agreement do not contemplate or confer such a right upon the Confirming Party, it cannot, by way of imputation or implication, be contended that a mere signatory status to the Agreement would, in and of itself, suffice to vest the Confirming Party with the entitlement to invoke the arbitration clause.”
Bombay High Court
Case Title: Veeramaneni Venugopalrao and Ors. Versus Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd.
Case Number: INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 6578 OF 2025 IN ARBITRATION PETITION NO.166 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 234
The Bombay High Court has reiterated that an arbitral award dispatched to a party's last known address amounts to valid service in law, even if the party does not actually receive it, and the limitation to challenge the award begins from the date of attempted delivery.
Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh held that, “Once the signed copy of the Award is shown to have been dispatched to the last known address of the Applicants, the same is sufficient to raise the deeming fiction under Section 3(2) and to draw an inference under Section 114 of Evidence Act,” rejecting the contention that limitation had not commenced due to non-receipt.
The ruling came in a challenge by the partners of Akshar Enterprises to an arbitral award dated December 20, 2021, rendered under the Mumbai Centre for International Arbitration in favour of Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd.
Arbitral Tribunal's Refusal To Implead Proposed Parties Is Appealable: Bombay High Court
Case Title : Deepak Shripat More Vs Udaysingh Harinarayansingh Rajpurohit & Ors
Case Number : ARBITRATION PETITION (L) NO.40041 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 300
The Bombay High Court has held that where an arbitral tribunal finds it lacks jurisdiction over persons sought to be added to arbitration proceedings, such a decision can be challenged, though it declined to interfere with such a refusal in a dispute between two partners in a property development firm.
Justice Somashekar Sundaresan held that such intervention may be necessary because, “if the arbitration proceedings are conducted entirely without the involvement of someone who is later found, after the award is passed, to be a veritable party, the parties would be put to severe hardship with the entire arbitral proceedings being found to have been conducted without the necessary parties' involvement.”
Non-Signatory Group Companies Cannot Be Automatically Impleaded In Arbitration: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Hind Offshore Private Limited v. OCS Services (India) Private Limited
Case Number : Commercial Arbitration Petition (L) No. 41270 of 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 301
The Bombay High Court has recently held that every group company connected to a commercial transaction cannot automatically be dragged into arbitration just because it belongs to the same corporate group as a signatory party or played some role in the underlying transaction.
Explaining the scope of the “group of companies” doctrine, Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan held, “What becomes clear is that whether a non-signatory is a veritable party to the arbitration agreement is the subject matter of assessment. The doctrine does not relate to the underlying agreement and the transactions contracted therein, but to the arbitration agreement. The doctrine is not that every group company that had any role at all to play must be subjected to arbitration proceedings. The enquiry is always meant to be fact-specific. In any operating contract, there could be multiple other parties with which one of the contracting parties has a contract. They would not become liable to action in any arbitration that a group company has with any third party.”
Case Title: New India Assurance Company Limited v M/s Seapool Pvt Ltd
Case Number : Commercial Arbitration Petition (L) No. 6069 of 2023
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 303
The Bombay High Court has recently upheld an arbitral award rejecting an insurer's reliance on an undisclosed expert opinion used to reduce an insured's claim, holding that the challenge essentially sought a reappreciation of evidence.
Justice Gauri Godse held the arbitral tribunal was justified in discarding the insurer's expert report. “ The expert opinion's report is also rightly not accepted by the Tribunal. It is held that the expert was appointed without any intimation to the claimant. Although the Insurance Company contended that the expert was appointed on the aspect of depreciation, the Tribunal, on an appreciation of the pleadings and evidence, held that the expert had given an opinion not only on depreciation but also on improvement, salvage, and other technical factors. Nothing is shown in this petition that the appointment of an expert by the Insurance company is permissible for independently assessing the loss and discarding the surveyor's assessment, which is as per the applicable rules.”
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.”
Case Title: D S Textiles Versus IIFL Finance Limited
Case Number: ARBITRATION PETITION (L) NO. 12097 OF 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 265
Recently, the Bombay High Court came down heavily on banks and non-banking finance companies for attempting to legitimise unilateral arbitrator appointments through institution-backed and algorithm-based selection mechanisms, holding that such practices are manipulative devices to circumvent Supreme Court rulings on arbitrator independence and neutrality.
Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan set aside arbitral orders passed in proceedings initiated by IIFL Finance and issued directions for compliance with Supreme Court law on arbitrator neutrality. He observed:
“...the attempt by finance companies and banks to pretend to have cleansed the arbitrator-appointment process by getting an “institution” of their choice to make a purportedly “independent” appointment is wholly untenable and completely illegal, and indeed a colourable and manipulative device to circumvent the law declared by the Supreme Court.”
Case Title : Nayara Energy Ltd. v. M/s Mahendra Sales Services
Case Number : Commercial Arbitration Petition No. 691 of 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 268
The Bombay High Court has held that arbitral tribunals cannot import principles of fairness and natural justice into commercial contracts contrary to their express terms.
The court made the observation while setting aside an arbitral award passed against Nayara Energy Ltd. that had directed restoration of a petrol pump dealership in Barmer and payment of ₹4 lakh compensation to the franchisee.
The court held that the tribunal acted contrary to Sections 28(2) and 28(3) of the Arbitration Act by quashing the termination despite Clause 19 of the franchise agreement permitting termination for breach. It further held that the tribunal erred in restoring a determinable contract despite Section 14(1)(c) of the Specific Relief Act barring specific enforcement of such contracts.
Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh held that "As the notion of fairness and equity cannot be read into contract dehors the terms of the commercial contract, the findings of the Learned Arbitrator for quashing and setting aside the termination is contrary to the substantive law and hence, stands vitiated."
Case Title: Hitesh Coal Traders v. Indapur Dairy & Milk Products Ltd.
Case Number : Commercial Arbitration Application No. 93 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 262
The Bombay High Court on 5 May held that an arbitration agreement can be inferred even in the absence of an express arbitration clause in the original purchase orders, where subsequent contractual documents and the conduct of the parties indicate a clear intention to arbitrate.
Justice Sandeep V. Marne allowed a Section 11 application by Hitesh Coal Traders and appointed Advocate Suyash Gadre as the sole arbitrator to adjudicate disputes with Indapur Dairy & Milk Products Ltd. arising from alleged unpaid dues of Rs 19,73,409 in coal supply transactions. He observed:
“mere absence of arbitration clause in Purchase Orders cannot be a reason for inferring that parties did not intend to resolve disputes through arbitration. By acknowledging the Delivery Challans and Tax Invoices and by making payments against the invoices containing arbitration clause the Respondent has agreed for resolution of disputes through the mechanism of arbitration. The intention of parties to arbitrate can thus easily be gathered in the facts of the present case."
No TDS Payable On National Highways' Land Acquisition Arbitral Awards: Bombay High Court
Case Title : Tukaram Kana Pawara (Deceased) Thr. Legal Heirs v. The Project Director Project Implementation Unit
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 914 of 2026 and connected matters
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 288
The Bombay High Court has held that deducting TDS from compensation awarded under arbitral awards in National Highways acquisition cases is impermissible, holding that forcing land losers to seek tax refunds would defeat the purpose of the land acquisition law's tax exemption.
Referring to Section 96 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, the Court observed,
"Any interpretation which requires deduction of tax at source and thereafter compels land losers to seek refund from the Income Tax Department would defeat the very purpose of the legislation. Such an approach, which forces farmers and land losers to move from one authority to another, is clearly contrary to the objects and reasons of the 2013 Act."
Justice Arun R. Pedneker passed the ruling while allowing a batch of writ petitions challenging District Court orders that permitted withdrawal of compensation amounts deposited pursuant to arbitral awards, subject to deduction of 10% towards TDS and transfer of the deducted amount to the Competent Authority for Land Acquisition (CALA).
Mumbai High Project Dispute: Bombay High Court Orders L&T To Keep ₹150 Crore Bank Guarantee Alive
Case Title: Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited vs. Larsen & Toubro Limited
Case Number: CARBP(L) 15345 OF 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 278
The Bombay High Court has directed Larsen & Toubro Ltd. to continue renewing and keeping alive bank guarantees worth approximately ₹150.34 crore furnished to ONGC Ltd. in a dispute over liquidated damages arising from the Mumbai High North redevelopment project.
The court held that ONGC, though largely unsuccessful in the arbitration after the tribunal awarded higher claims to L&T, could still seek interim protection under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act in a rare and compelling case.
It ordered the guarantee to remain alive until the final disposal of ONGC's challenge to the arbitral award under Section 34.
Justice Sandeep V. Marne observed, “Refusal of interim measures would result in a manifest disproportion as the Petitioner would lose the security worth 10% of the contract price while Respondent's only burden is the continued existence of the bank guarantee.”
Financial Institution Need Not Be Secured Creditor To Invoke SARFAESI Arbitration: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Aditya Birla Housing Finance Limited v. Axis Bank Limited & Ors.
Case Number: Commercial Arbitration Application No. 95 of 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 272
The Bombay High Court has held that a financial institution need not already be a secured creditor to invoke statutory arbitration under the SARFAESI Act, while referring a loan takeover dispute between Aditya Birla Housing Finance Ltd. and Axis Bank to arbitration.
Justice Sandeep V. Marne held that Section 11 of the SARFAESI Act does not require a bank or financial institution invoking arbitration to already be a secured creditor.
The court observed, “Section 11 of the SARFAESI Act by itself does not use the expression 'secured creditor'. Therefore plain language of Section 11 does not require that the bank or financial institution must also possess the status that of a secured creditor.”
Conflicting Contractual Clauses Do Not Override A Clear Arbitration Agreement: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Generic Engineering Construction and Projects Ltd. VERSUS Maharashtra Maritime Board
Case Number : COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 1070 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 256
The Bombay High Court has held that when contractual clauses appear inconsistent or conflict with a clear arbitration clause, courts must lean in favour of arbitration, emphasising that such an approach is necessary to avoid frustrating valid arbitration agreements.
A bench of Justice Sandeep V. Marne made the observation while appointing a sole arbitrator in a dispute between Generic Engineering Construction Projects Ltd and the Maharashtra Maritime Board arising from termination of a construction contract, holding that the parties had clearly agreed to arbitrate even disputes relating to termination.
“In a case where few other clauses in the contract may be slightly inconsistent or may be in conflict with the main arbitration clause, the Courts will have to rule in favour of the arbitration rather than giving weightage to those confusing or conflicting clauses. Once there is clear agreement to arbitrate, the Courts would tend to ignore other clauses of contract which may create confusion about existence of arbitration agreement. After all arbitration is aimed at declogging the overburdened Courts and therefore Courts need to necessarily rule in favour of arbitration rather than concentrating on other inconsistent clauses for holding that specific arbitration clause present in the contract would get nullified by those clauses.”
Nine Years Of Silence In Arbitration Equals Abandonment Under Section 32(2)(c): Bombay High Court
Case Title : Supama Realtors LLP and Others v. Mulchand Kaluchand Ranka and Others
Case Number : Commercial Arbitration Application No. 242 of 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 287
The Bombay High Court on 8 May held that prolonged inactivity in arbitral proceedings, coupled with absence of any steps for nearly nine years, amounted to implied abandonment, resulting in termination of proceedings under Section 32(2)(c) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Justice Sandeep V. Marne dismissed the plea seeking appointment of a substitute arbitrator, holding that the arbitral proceedings stood terminated and could not be revived. He observed:
“It is incomprehensible that settlement talks can go on for 9 long years. It is not that the Applicants were writing to the learned arbitrator about progress of the settlement talks or have even kept the arbitrator informed about settlement talks happening.”
Bombay High Court Holds Denial Of 30% Solatium Is Computational Error In NH Land Acquisition Cases
Case Title : Prashant Vasant Koregaonkar & Ors Versus Competent Authority
Case Number: ARBITRATION APPEAL NO. 70 OF 2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 286
The Bombay High Court recently held that denial of 30% solatium in arbitral awards arising from compulsory land acquisition for National Highways projects constitutes a computational error, which can be corrected under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, without undertaking a merits review.
Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan allowed a batch of appeals filed by landowners, including Prashant Vasant Koregaonkar and others, challenging arbitral awards in proceedings under the National Highways Act, 1956. It directed payment of 30% solatium to the claimants and modified the impugned awards accordingly.
“The law declared by the Supreme Court renders the computation of the solatium as imperative. Such computation is merely computation of 30% of the value of the compensation. The error in the Arbitral Award is clearly a computational error. Correcting this error would not undermine or impact any other component of the Arbitral Award. Therefore, the mere computation of the 30% amount payable on the compensation awarded for the land acquisition in question, in my opinion, in the facts of this case, falls within the ambit of a computational error.”
Calcutta High Court
Case Title: The Asia Health Care Development Private Limited v. State of West Bengal & Others
Case Number: WPA 17068 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 126
The Calcutta High Court has recently held that pending arbitration over a lease dispute does not by itself prevent public authorities from initiating eviction proceedings under the West Bengal Public Land (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act against an alleged unauthorised occupant of public land.
Justice Om Narayan Rai, however, set aside the impugned eviction notice after finding that the statutory authority had acted with a prejudged and influenced mind.
Explaining why the pending arbitration did not automatically bar the statutory proceedings, the Court said:
“The mere existence of that pending jurisdictional inquiry before the arbitrator does not strip the Collector of his separate statutory authority to issue a show-cause notice under Section 3 of the 1962 Act. In any case estoppel would apply only if the arbitral remedy would be validly available for resolution of the dispute in question.”
Case Title : THE PEERLESS GENERAL FINANCE AND INVESTMENT COMPANY LIMITED VERSUS GANGULY HOME SEARCH PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANR
Case Number: AP-COM 69 OF 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 128
The Calcutta High Court on 19 May held that where a series of agreements form part of a single, continuous commercial transaction, an arbitration clause in the original agreement survives in subsequent arrangements unless the later agreement clearly and unambiguously shows an intention to abandon arbitration.
Justice Gaurang Kanth allowed a Section 11 petition filed by The Peerless General Finance and Investment Company Ltd and appointed former Judge of the Calcutta High Court, Justice Indra Prasanna Mukerji, as sole arbitrator in disputes arising out of a series of agreements with Ganguly Home Search Pvt Ltd relating to a real-estate project. The Single-Judge Bench held:
“On the question of the survival of the arbitration clause, this Court is of the considered view that where a series of agreements form part of a single, integrated, and continuing commercial transaction, and where the earlier agreements contain a broad arbitration clause covering all disputes and differences arising in connection with the said transaction, the said arbitration clause does not get extinguished merely by reason of execution of a subsequent agreement which is silent on the point, unless there is a clear, express, and unambiguous provision in the subsequent agreement indicating that the parties intended to abandon and give up the right to arbitrate.”
Dispute Over Partnership Deed Validity Cannot Defeat Arbitration Agreement: Calcutta High Court
Case Title: SMT. JULI BHAGAT VERSUS SRI ALOK BHAGAT AND ORS.
Case Number : AP-COM 907 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 129
The Calcutta High Court on 18 May held that a party cannot defeat an arbitration agreement merely by disputing the validity or genuineness of partnership deeds containing the arbitration clause. It observed that allowing such a challenge at the referral stage would undermine the doctrine of Kompetenz-Kompetenz under Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
Justice Gaurang Kanth allowed a Section 11 petition filed by Juli Bhagat and appointed Advocate Chayan Gupta as sole arbitrator to adjudicate disputes arising from partnership deeds executed with Alok Bhagat and other family members concerning management of hotel properties of Late Arvind Bhagat. He observed:
“It would be a manifest incongruity to hold that namely because a party disputes the validity of the deed containing the arbitration clause, the Court must therefore refuse to refer the dispute to arbitration. Such an approach would effectively enable a party to defeat the arbitration agreement merely by raising a challenge to the underlying document, which is precisely what the doctrine of Kompetenz-Kompetenz, as enshrined in Section 16 of the Act, seeks to prevent.”
Case Title: M/s Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited v. Sayan Goswami and Anr.
Case Number : EC-COM 248 of 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 120
The Calcutta High Court has refused to enforce an ex parte arbitral award in favour of Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Ltd., holding that a lender cannot indirectly secure the appointment of a sole arbitrator through an arbitral institution of its own choosing when the borrowers have neither consented to the process nor participated in it.
Justice Gaurang Kanth held, “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. 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"
Case Title : IDFC First Bank Limited and Another v. Shyamsundar Distributor and Another
Case Number : FMA 1389 of 2025 with IA No. CAN 1 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 122
The Calcutta High Court has dismissed IDFC First Bank Limited's appeal against a trial court order that refused to send a loan dispute to arbitration and struck off the bank's defence for failing to act within time.
A division bench of Justice Debangsu Basak and Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi upheld the order, finding that the bank had waited nearly 11 months after entering appearance in the suit before seeking arbitration.
“In the case at hand, as noted above, the appellant/defendant came up with an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 after about 11 months of its first appearance in the suit which came to be rejected by the learned Trial Court on the ground that the same was filed much after the expiry of the time prescribed for putting in the statement of defence,” the bench observed.
“Therefore, in view of the discussions made hereinabove, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned order. The same is hereby affirmed. Accordingly, the instant appeal being FMA 1389 of 2025 is hereby dismissed,” it added.
Delay In Challenging Arbitral Award Not Condoned When Party Lacks Due Diligence: Calcutta High Court
Case Title : Kamlesh Kumar Agarwala v. The Estate of Manjan Devi Patni, represented by Nirmal Kumar Jain
Case Number: APO 27 of 2021 with AP 74 of 2019
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 132
The Calcutta High Court on 20 May held that a party cannot invoke Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to save a delayed challenge to an arbitral award after pursuing proceedings before the wrong forum without due diligence and bona fide conduct.
A Division Bench of Justices Debangsu Basak and Md. Shabbar Rashidi also held that once the High Court entertains an application under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, exclusive jurisdiction thereafter vests in it for all subsequent arbitral proceedings, including a challenge to the award and dismissed an appeal filed by Kamlesh Kumar Agarwala. It observed:
“In order to avail the benefits under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, the party claiming benefits has to establish that there was observance of due diligence on the part of such party in pursuing the proceedings in the wrong forum.”
Case Title : PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, G. T. A. DARJEELING Vs M/S. MOHINDRA TUBES LIMITED
Case Number : AP-COM 382 OF 2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 121
The Calcutta High Court on 13 May held that non-compliance with the mandatory pre-deposit requirement under Section 19 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 does not, by itself, bar restoration of a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
A Bench comprising Justice Gaurang Kanth allowed a restoration application filed by the Public Health Engineering Department, Gorkhaland Territorial Administration and restored its Section 34 petition challenging an MSME Facilitation Council award in favour of Mohindra Tubes Ltd. He held:
“The proposition that non-compliance with Section 19 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 ipso facto bars the entertainment or allowing of a Restoration Application is neither supported by the plain text of the statute, nor by any binding or persuasive judicial authority placed before this Court. This Court accordingly declines to accept the said proposition.”
Case Title : Kessels Engineering Works Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Neo Metalicks Limited
Case Number: AP-COM/245/2024, IA No: GA/1/2022
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 136
The Calcutta High Court has set aside an arbitral award in favour of Neo Metaliks Limited, holding that a dissenting arbitrator cannot be excluded from deliberations and given the majority award only after it has been finalised.
Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya passed the ruling while allowing Kessels Engineering Works Pvt Ltd's challenge to the award and staying operation of the judgment for 30 days.
Justice Bhattacharyya observed, “Deliberation between the co-arbitrators in a multi-member Arbitral Tribunal is an essential ingredient of party autonomy, since the parties agree upon and submit to adjudication by all the members and not by any one or some of them. Such basic tenet goes for a toss if one of the Arbitrators is kept out of the loop by the others while preparing the award.”
The court added, “Although a dissenting Arbitrator has a right to dissent, such dissent has to be an informed decision and not a post facto adjudication after the majority award is finalized, delivered and only then handed over to him, without prior consultation.”
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.”
Case Title : M/s Electronica Finance Limited vs Quality Offset Printers & Ors.
Case Number : A.P. COM No. 610 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 101
The Calcutta High Court has held, in the facts of a loan dispute, that borrowers who failed to object to the choice of arbitration venue despite notice and participated in earlier proceedings before Kolkata courts could not later challenge jurisdiction, as their conduct amounted to consent.
A Single Bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar allowed an application filed by Electronica Finance Limited and appointed advocate Deepan Kumar Sarkar as the sole arbitrator to adjudicate disputes with Quality Offset Printers and others.
“The submissions of the learned Advocate for the respondents as recorded by Their Lordships, do not indicate that any question of jurisdiction was raised in the appeal, which means that the respondents did not have any objection with regard to the choice of venue of the arbitration being Kolkata and jurisdiction of the courts at Kolkata over the subject matter of the dispute. The notice invoking arbitration clearly mentioned in paragraphs 6, 7 and 8 that the lender had chosen Kolkata as the venue of the arbitral proceedings and the courts at Kolkata to have jurisdiction over the said agreement,” the Court noted, before adding:
“In the factual matrix of this case, consent of the respondents to anchor the arbitral proceeding at Kolkata is available from the conduct.”
Calcutta High Court Temporarily Stays Arbitral Award In Tata Nano Singur Land Acquisition Dispute
Case Title : WEST BENGAL INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. VERSUS TATA MOTORS LIMITED
Case Number : AP-COM/88/2024
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 104
The Calcutta High Court on Thursday (May 7) temporarily stayed for eight weeks the enforcement of a ₹765.78 crore arbitral award passed in favour of Tata Motors Ltd against the West Bengal Industrial Development Corporation Ltd (WBIDC) in the dispute over the acquisition of land in Singur for Tata's Nano factory.
An arbitral tribunal had, on October 30, 2023 directed WBIDC to pay Tata Motors ₹765.78 crore with interest at 11% per annum.
Justice Aniruddha Roy granted an unconditional interim stay on operation and enforcement of the award. The Court clarified that the stay would automatically stand vacated after eight weeks if WBIDC failed to either furnish an undertaking securing the award amount or deposit the directed cash security.
“There shall be an unconditional stay of the impugned award till eight weeks from date. Thereafter, if the undertaking is not filed before the Registrar, Original Side or the cash security is not deposited as the case may be, as directed herein, within the said period of eight weeks, the stay will automatically be vacated.”, it held.
Calcutta High Court Upholds ₹151 Crore Arbitral Award On Restitution In Coal Block Dispute
Case Title : WEST BENGAL MINERAL DEVELOPMENT AND TRADING CORPORATION LTD. VS TRANS DAMODAR COAL MINING PVT. LTD.
Case Number : AP-COM/172/2024
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 110
The Calcutta High Court on 5 May upheld major portions of an arbitral award of about Rs. 151 crore in favour of Trans Damodar Coal Mining Pvt Ltd in a dispute arising from cancellation of coal block allocation after the Supreme Court's 2014 judgments.
Justice Shampa Sarkar held that even though the mining contract became void after the Supreme Court struck down coal block allocations in 2014, the arbitral tribunal could still grant limited restitutionary relief under the Contract Act and the Coal Mines (Special Provisions) Act, 2015 to prevent unjust enrichment between the parties. She held:
“The Arbitrator rightly held that, if the contract was void, any party who may have taken advantage under such a void contract, should refund the advantage or compensate to the person from whom such advantage was received, under the provision of Contract Act. The decision of the learned Arbitrator was made on the principle of equity, that no one should unjustly enrich himself at another's expense. The principle of restitution would not be applicable if the agreement was void ab initio, and the parties knowingly entered into the illegal or void contract.”
Kolkata East-West Metro: Calcutta High Court Upholds Arbitral Award In Favour Of KMRC
Case Title : ITD-ITD CEM JOINT VENTURE VERSUS KOLKATA METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD.
Case Number: AP-COM 181 OF 2024
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 107
The Calcutta High Court on Friday dismissed a challenge filed by ITD-ITD CEM Joint Venture against an arbitral award arising from the Kolkata East-West Metro Railway Project. It upheld the award in favour of Kolkata Metro Rail Corporation Ltd (KMRC).
Justice Gaurang Kanth rejected the contractor's petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The challenge was to portions of an arbitral award dated November 21, 2019.
The Court held that the arbitral tribunal's findings neither ignored the contract nor traveled beyond its terms. It said the tribunal had taken a plausible and reasoned view based on the contract and the evidence.
“The decisions relied upon by the Petitioner pertain to cases where the arbitral award was found to be in disregard of the contractual framework or vitiated by manifest illegality. In the present case, the findings of the Tribunal neither ignore the contract nor traverse beyond its terms; rather, they represent a plausible and reasoned view based on interpretation of the contract and appreciation of evidence. In the absence of any demonstrable perversity, patent illegality, or violation of public policy, the scope of interference under Section 34 remains limited, and the reliance placed on the aforesaid judgments is, therefore, misplaced.” the Court held.
Mere Delay Or Inaction Does Not Amount To Abandonment Of Arbitration: Calcutta High Court
Case Title: MIPL DRAIPL JV VERSUS EASTERN RAILWAY
Case Number : AP-COM 1007 OF 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 102
The Calcutta High Court has held that mere delay or inaction cannot, by itself, lead to an inference of abandonment of arbitration, emphasising that there must be a clear and conscious intention to relinquish the arbitral remedy.
Justice Gaurang Kanth allowed a petition by MIPL DRAIPL JV in a dispute with Eastern Railway and appointed a substitute arbitrator after terminating the earlier arbitrator's mandate.
“In law, abandonment cannot be readily inferred from mere inaction or delay. It must be established that there was a clear, unequivocal, and conscious intention on the part of the party to relinquish the arbitral remedy. The test is not merely of lapse of time, but of intention as discernible from the conduct of the party.”
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case Title : Carolyn Joyce Tadamala v. Royal City Developer Private Limited
Case Number COMCA No. 27 of 2025
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC(APH) 40
The Andhra Pradesh High Court on 7 May held that a mere stipulation in an arbitration agreement that proceedings “shall be held” at Hyderabad does not, by itself, make Hyderabad the juridical seat of arbitration, especially where the agreement separately confers exclusive jurisdiction on civil courts in East Godavari District.
A Division Bench of Justices Ravi Nath Tilhari and Balaji Medamalli allowed a Commercial Court Appeal filed by Carolyn Joyce Tadamala against Royal City Developer Private Limited and set aside the Commercial Court order dated 1 December 2025 dismissing her Section 9 petition for want of territorial jurisdiction. It observed:
“Mere mentioning of a place of arbitration would not amount to fixing of the seat of arbitration, thereby conferring jurisdiction upon the courts of that place and Clauses 57 and 58 of the DAGPA must be conjointly read to arrive and draw the intention of the parties to the agreement while entering into such an agreement. Thus, the intention is very clear that the arbitration proceedings will be taken place at Hyderabad where the same has to be treated as a place/venue of arbitration and the same cannot be equated or elevated to the status of seat of arbitration.”
ONGC Cannot Seek Re-Deposit Of ₹42.89 Crore Withdrawn With Its “No Objection”: AP High Court
Case Title : Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. v. Deep Industries Ltd. & Ors.
Case Number : I.A. No.2 of 2025 in COM.CA. No.18 of 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(APH) 37
The Andhra Pradesh High Court on 7 May held that Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. (ONGC) cannot compel Deep Industries Ltd. (DIL) to re-deposit Rs. 42.89 crore or furnish security for amounts withdrawn in arbitration proceedings, particularly since ONGC had earlier given a written “no objection” permitting withdrawal without any condition.
A Division Bench of Justices Ravi Nath Tilhari and Balaji Medamalli dismissed ONGC's interim application in its pending Section 37 appeal against an arbitral award in favour of Deep Industries Ltd. It held:
“It is for the first time after filing the counter in I.A.No.2 of 2025 that the stand has been taken in the rejoinder affidavit that, the deponent of the counter, official of ONGC had not been instructed to give „no objection‟ to withdraw the amount by DIL. Under the circumstances, the plea taken appears to us to be well afterthought to get over the "no objection" made before the learned Special Judge by way of writing in the counter to permit withdrawal to DIL.”
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”
Section 9 Relief Cannot Restore Ousted LLP Partner Or Confer Final Control: Rajasthan High Court
Case Title: M/s Srasti Liquor Bottling LLP & Ors. v. Mrs. Sita Rajesh Varma
Case Number: D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2724/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (RAJ) 16
The Rajasthan High Court on 30 April held that a Commercial Court exercising interim powers under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 cannot grant relief that effectively restores a removed partner or confers operational control over an LLP, as such directions would amount to granting final relief prior to the commencement of arbitration.
A Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Shubha Mehta set aside the Jaipur Commercial Court's directions that had restored Sita Rajesh Varma as a designated partner and ordered joint operation of LLP bank accounts along with ROC compliance directions in an internal LLP dispute. It observed:
“It is the arbitrator who will decide all inter se disputes and it is the arbitrator who will take decisions regarding the disputes and how to settle them. The commercial court while exercising power under Section 9 of the Act of 1996 would not have the power to allow one of the parties to initiate proceedings for dissolution of the firm nor it can direct the Respondent to interfere with the affairs of the LLP as it only has 45% of the shares while the Appellant possesses majority shares. We say so as the powers under Section 9 of the Act of 1996 are only to the extent of passing of interim order which cannot be of final nature.”
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Madhya Pradesh High Court Holds MPIR Execution Not Barred by Limitation, Reads Down Rule 48-A
Case Title: Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur v Chotelal
Case Number : Misc. Petition No. 2501 Of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(MP) 37
The Jabalpur Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court on 21 April held that execution proceedings under the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Relations Act, 1960 (MPIR Act) are not barred by limitation even when initiated after more than a decade of the award.
Justice Vivek Jain further read down Rule 48-A of the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Relations Rules, 1961, holding that it cannot override Section 108 of the Act by prescribing a limitation period for execution and dismissed a petition filed by the Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur. He held:
“The substantive Act, that is the Act of 1960 declares that the recovery of money shall be executed as if it was a fine imposed by a criminal court under CRPC, for which there is no limitation prescribed for such recovery. On the contrary, the rule applies Code of Civil Procedure to such execution of recoveries and also applies a limitation period which is counter to the substantive provisions of the parent Act which does not provide any limitation for execution either in Section 108 or anywhere else in the act. Even the procedure for recovery as per Section 108 shall be as per Section 421 of Cr.P.C. whereas the Rule 48-A provides a totally different mode by adopting Code of Civil Procedure for that purpose. Therefore the Rule 48-A is in direct conflict with Section of the Act.”
Case Title: MPM Homes Developers Ltd Through Its Partner Smt. Annapurna Maheshwari And Others Versus M/S Amarjot Developers And Finance Pvt. Ltd Through Authorized Signatory Vivek Chugh
Case Number : Arbitration Appeal No. 332 Of 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (MP) 32
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has upheld an interim order restraining parties from alienating disputed property in an arbitration matter and held that the interim injunction shall continue during the pendency of arbitration proceedings.
“we are of the view that the learned trial Court was right in exercising its jurisdiction under Section 9 of the Act, 1996 considering the fact that the sole arbitrator was appointed and arbitral tribunal was constituted after the learned trial Court had applied its mind and had entertained the application filed under Section 9 and at that time, the respondent did not had any other efficacious remedy.”
Case Title : Northern Coal Field Ltd. Versus M/S Suresh Construction Co
Case Number: ARBITRATION APPEAL No. 39 of 2011
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (MP) 33
The Madhya Pradesh High Court on 4 May held that limitation for an arbitral claim begins when the claim is denied or repudiated, and not from the date of issuance of notice under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. It further held that an arbitral tribunal commits patent illegality if it treats the Section 21 notice as the starting point of limitation.
A Bench of Justice Vivek Jain partly allowed the appeal filed by Northern Coal Fields Ltd. (NCL) and set aside portions of the arbitral award relating to overburden removal charges, withheld payments, and interest thereon, while upholding the award on escalation charges and interest on escalation amounts. He observed:
“the limitation to initiate Section 11 application is different from the limitation of claim. The limitation of claim is to be assessed up to the date of issuing notice under Section 21 and it will not start from the date of issuing notice under Section 21 and to that extent, the award of the Arbitrator is contrary to the law of the land by misconruing the law of limitation in Arbitration.”
Karnataka High Court
Arbitral Award Cannot Be Set Aside In Entirety If Claims Are Separable: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: Pinaka Infomatics Private Limited v. Karnataka State Electronics Development Corporation Limited
Case Number : Commercial Appeal No. 517 of 2024
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(KAR) 64
The Karnataka High Court has held that an arbitral award comprising distinct and separable claims cannot be set aside in its entirety merely because one component is found invalid, as courts have the power to sever the invalid portion while sustaining the valid portion.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C.M. Poonacha allowed the appeal filed by Pinaka Infomatics Private Limited and modified the order of the Commercial Court, Bengaluru, which had set aside the arbitral award in full. It stated:
“As noted herein before the Supreme Court also observed that the authority to sever the 'invalid' portion of an arbitral award from the 'valid' portion is inherent in the court's jurisdiction when setting aside an award.”
Case Title: P. Nagaraju vs The Special Land Acquisition Officer & Ors
Case Number: MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1034 OF 2026 (AA
Citation :2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 65
The Karnataka High Court has reiterated that courts cannot enhance compensation by modifying arbitral awards in land acquisition disputes under the National Highways Act.
Referring to the precedent set by apex court, the court held,
"The question whether the court could modify the award was also considered by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in a recent decision in Gayatri Balasamy v. ISG Novasoft Technologies Limited3 . The Supreme Court, by a majority held that the arbitral award could be modified to a limited extent to rectify computable, clerical or typographical errors as well as other manifest errors. However, the Supreme Court also clarified that the same was subject to such modification not necessitating a meritsbased evaluation. Thus, the Court exercising the power under Section 34 of the A&C Act cannot re-adjudicate the disputes and substitute its opinion on the merits of the disputes in place of the award of the arbitral tribunal."
Karnataka High Court Dismisses AVTEC Appeal, Holds Unilateral Appointment Of Sole Arbitrator Invalid
Case Title : AVTEC Limited v. PDS Logistics International Private Limited
Case Number: Commercial Appeal No. 245 of 2021
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(KAR) 61
The Karnataka High Court on 29 April dismissed an appeal filed by AVTEC Limited and upheld the Commercial Court's order setting aside an arbitral award.
A Division Bench of Justices Anu Sivaraman and T.M. Nadaf held that parties cannot permit unilateral appointment of a sole arbitrator under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and also ruled that a party which participates in arbitration without objection cannot later dispute jurisdiction. It observed:
“The appellant having participated in the arbitration at Bengaluru on merits without raising any objection to the venue. Therefore, the appellant had acquiesced to the venue and consequently, the seat has been changed to Bengaluru.”
Madras High Court
Madras High Court Sets Aside Rental Loss In Arbitral Award Against VLCC In Lease Dispute
Case Title: VLCC Health Care Limited v. Veeram Raja and Ors
Case Number: CMA No. 367 of 2023 in CMP No. 3102 of 2023
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 112
The Madras High Court has partly allowed an appeal filed by VLCC Health Care Limited, setting aside the rental loss component of an arbitral award while upholding damages and arrears of rent against the company.
The court held that once possession of the premises had been handed over, a claim for rental loss for the subsequent period was unsustainable.
A Division Bench of Justices P. Velmurugan and K. Govindarajan Thilakavadi was dealing with an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, challenging an order of the Principal District Judge, Coimbatore, which had confirmed an arbitral award dated February 21, 2015.
Madras High Court Says No Cheque Bounce Prosecution If Underlying Arbitral Award Was Challenged
Case Title : S. Ramamoorthy v. M/s. T. Jayaraman
Case Number : Crl.O.P.No.3562 of 2023
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 130
The Madras High Court has recently quashed cheque bounce proceedings against a builder after finding that he had challenged the arbitral award cited as the basis of the alleged liability before the cheque was allegedly issued.
Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan said, “Even before the date of issuance of the cheque i.e. 15.07.2019, the accused challenged the very arbitration award before this Court as early as on 11.02.2019 in Arb.OP.Nos.381 and 382 of 2019. Therefore, the accused would not have issued the cheque dated 15.07.2019 to discharge his partial liability towards the award passed against him. Subsequently, the very award itself was set aside by this Court by order dated 29.04.2024 in Arb.OP.Nos.381 and 382 of 2019. In overall circumstances, the entire initiation of proceedings under Section 138 of NI Act is nothing but clear abuse of process of law and it cannot be sustained.”
Private Arbitration Cannot Override Statutory Labour Adjudication: Madras High Court
Case Title : Veejay Lakshmi Engineering Works Limited v. GTN Enterprises Limited
Case Number : CMA No. 232 of 2024
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 129
The Madras High Court has recently held that statutory labour adjudication cannot be displaced by private contractual arbitration where statutory worker rights are involved.
A Division Bench of Justice P Velmurugan and Justice K Govindarajan Thilakavadi observed, “While the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 governs voluntary arbitration, the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is a specialized social legislation designed to protect workers, and its mandatory procedures cannot be over ridden by private agreements.”
The bench further observed, “Moreover, the industrial disputes act, 1947 is a beneficial legislation that takes precedents when contractual arbitration is used to override statutory rights. In other words, a decision from a labour Court or Industrial Tribunal is mandatory and takes precedents, as it operates under statutory authority to maintain industrial peace, which is superior to private contract disputes.”
Case Title : K.Punniyamoorthy & Anr. v. M/s Escape Artists Motion Pictures & Ors.
Case Number: OA No. 283 of 2023
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 125
The Madras High Court recently permitted the release of Dhruva Natchathiram, a Gautham Vasudev Menon directorial, subject to the condition that pre-release payments be made to creditors and that all revenues from the film be routed through a court-monitored bank account.
The film, which stars Chiyaan Vikram in the lead role, has been delayed by nearly eight years since it was first slated for release.
The injunction had originally been obtained in 2023 by two parties to the production agreement, K. Punniyamoorthy and K. Premkumar, who invoked an arbitration clause in their agreement with Escape Artists Motion Pictures and sought pre-reference interim relief to restrain the film's release. Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy recorded that “At the suggestion of the Court, the applicants agreed to the release of the movie subject to certain terms and conditions. Likewise, the respondents also agreed subject to the discharge of payment obligations before and after the release of the movie.”
Case Title : The Federation of Motor Sports Clubs of India v. Blue Band Sports Private Limited & Anr.
Case Number: CRP No. 2287 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 126
The Madras High Court has refused to strike off a civil suit over disputes relating to a motorsports event, including the 49th South India Rally, holding that the existence of an arbitration clause does not by itself bar the jurisdiction of a civil court.
“Further, the existence of an arbitration clause does not ipso facto bar the jurisdiction of the Civil Court unless the procedure contemplated under the Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is duly invoked before the competent Court. Such issues are to be raised and decided before the trial Court and cannot be a ground to invoke Article 227 at the threshold to strike off the plaint”, a single-judge bench of Justice T.V. Thamilselvi held.
Only High Courts Can Entertain Section 34 Challenges In International Arbitration: Madras High Court
Case Title: Waterbury Farrel v. Steel Authority of India Limited & Anr.
Case Number : C.R.P. No. 1138 of 2023
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 123
The Madras High Court on 21 April, held that Section 34 challenges arising from international commercial arbitration must be filed before the High Court and not District Courts, in view of Section 2(1)(e) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 as amended in 2015.
Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy upheld the order of the Principal District Judge, Salem returning the Section 34 petition filed by Waterbury Farrel against Steel Authority of India Limited (SAIL) and Shriram EPC Limited for lack of jurisdiction, while setting aside the direction to re-present it before the New Delhi Court and permitting filing before the Madras High Court within 30 days. He held:
“As regards international commercial arbitration, only the High Court having jurisdiction to decide the questions forming the subject matter of the arbitration if the same had been the subject matter of the suit or the High Court having jurisdiction to hear appeals from decrees of courts subordinate to the High Court qualifies as Court for the purposes of the A & C Act. By virtue of this amendment, the Principal District Judge, Salem, no longer has jurisdiction in relation to an international commercial arbitration, such as in this case.”
Case Title : Ennore Tank Terminals Private Limited v. Kamarajar Port Limited
Case Number: OSA Nos. 263 & 265 of 2019
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 127
The Madras High Court has recently held that when a Master passes an order in execution of an arbitral award arising out of a commercial dispute, the order is equivalent to one passed by the Commercial Division of the High Court itself and cannot be challenged again before the Commercial Division.
"When a Master passes an order in an Execution Petition filed under Section 36 of the Arbitration Act, the said order is equivalent to the order of the Commercial Division of the High Court and there cannot be an appeal filed again before the Commercial Division. To reiterate the Master acts as a delegate of the Court when he discharges judicial act under the Original Side Rules and not when he discharges judicial act under the Commercial Courts Act or on a Commercial dispute adjudicated under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. This view has been strengthened by the subsequent amendment to the procedure when Execution Petitions on a commercial dispute are brought directly before the Commercial Division and not before the Master.,” the Court 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.”
Dealer's Counter-Offer Not Consent: Allahabad HC Sets Aside HPCL Arbitrator Appointment
Case Title : Laxmi Kant Pandey v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.
Case Number : Arbitration Appeal No. 53 of 2023
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (ALL) 37
The Allahabad High Court has set aside an arbitral award after finding that Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. could not validly appoint its own officer as arbitrator without a clear written waiver from the dealer after the dispute had arisen.
"Hence, the appellant cannot be non-suited for not taking a precise ground in its petition under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 as the ground of illegibility could be raised at any stage and having done so and examined by this Court, it is found that the appointment of the Arbitrator was not valid nor the waiver as per Section 12(5) of the Act was express, thus rendering the appointment legally invalid and even the award made by such an Arbitrator is rendered invalid. Thus, the second issue is answered accordingly,” the court observed.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Jaspreet Singh held that the law requires a clear and express written waiver before an otherwise ineligible arbitrator can be appointed, and such waiver was missing in the present case.
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."
Case Title : Rajender Kumar v. National Highway Authority of India and Anr
Case Number: Arbitration Case No. 216 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(HP) 17
The Himachal Pradesh High Court on 20 May held that an application under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking extension of time is maintainable even after expiry of the arbitral mandate, but such extension can be granted only on proof of “sufficient cause”, consistent with the legislative objective of expeditious arbitral resolution.
A Bench of Justice Virender Singh dismissed a plea filed by landowner Rajender Kumar seeking extension of time to complete arbitral proceedings arising from acquisition of land for widening of National Highway-21. He held:
“....if the application is allowed, merely on the asking of the party, then, there would be no end to the litigation and the object of Section 29A of the Act would be defeated by allowing the application, which is filed after a long gap of time.”
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.
Case Title: The Learning Curve Educational Trust v. The Indian Institute of Technology
Case Number: CARBC No. 29 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (HP) 14
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has refused interim relief to The Learning Curve Educational Trust, which sought a stay on the termination of its agreement to run a campus school at IIT Mandi.
The court held that, in the facts of the case, a party that failed to challenge a termination notice for nearly two years could not seek protection under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Justice Ajay Mohan Goel observed that the Trust had “slept over the matter” and failed to satisfy the settled requirements for interim relief, including a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss.
"In light of the fact that the petitioner did not take steps to get rid of the Notice of termination dated 01.05.2024, for almost two years, now when the period of two years is coming to an end, by no stretch of imagination the petitioner can plead that it has a prima facie case in its favour.,” the court said.
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'.”
Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court
Arbitral Tribunal's Mandate Not Automatically Terminated After Deadline: J&K & Ladakh High Court
Case Title: M & Company Engineers & Contractors Pvt. Ltd. v. J&K Economic Reconstruction Agency & Ors.
Case Number: CM No.8828/2025 in AA No.23/2017
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (JAM) 15
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has reiterated that an arbitral tribunal does not permanently lose its authority merely because the deadline to pass an award has expired, holding that proceedings can continue if the Court later extends the time.
A Bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar relying on the Supreme Court's ruling in Rohan Builders (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Berger Paints India Ltd. observed:
“it is clear that expiry of stipulated time period for making award only makes the Arbitral Tribunal functus officio but not in absolute terms...”
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.”
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 : Kuldeep Singh and Another v. Union of India and Others
Case Number: CWP No. 38070 of 2025 (O&M)
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (PNH) 25
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that denying landowners whose compensation is enhanced in arbitration under the National Highways Act the same interest benefits available to similarly placed landowners would be discriminatory and violative of Article 14.
Justice Harkesh Manuja held, “In the present case, the learned Arbitrator, by denying parity to identically placed landowners even though only with regard to the interest component of the compensation, has acted arbitrarily and in breach of Article 14, thereby offending the fundamental principles of fair procedure.”
Drawing on the Supreme Court's ruling in Union of India v. Tarsem Singh, the High Court said landowners whose property is acquired for national highway projects cannot be denied compensation benefits that are available to others in similar acquisition cases. It emphasised that compensation is not limited to the base amount and solatium but also covers interest for delayed payment.
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.
Jharkhand High Court
Jharkhand High Court Pulls Up JSBC for Seeking Adjournment In Arbitration Matter Over Transfer of MD
Case Title: K.S. MULTI FACILITY SERVICES PVT LTD vs JHARKHAND STATE BEVERAGES CORPORATION
Case Number: Arbitration Application No. 1 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (JHAR) 9
The Jharkhand High Court recently pulled up Jharkhand State Beverages Corporation for seeking a second adjournment in an arbitration matter on the ground that its managing director had been transferred.
The court observed that the corporation was “bent upon delaying the matter.” It then appointed former Jharkhand High Court judge Justice N.N. Tiwari as sole arbitrator in its dispute with K.S. Multi Facility Services Private Limited.
Chief Justice M.S. Sonak observed that the corporation's reasons for seeking adjournment were unconvincing. He noted that an earlier adjournment had been granted subject to payment of Rs. 10,000 in costs.
“On the ground that the Managing Director is not available or is transferred, this is the second time that adjournment is applied for, even though, earlier adjournment was granted, subject to payment of cost of Rs. 10,000/-. Surprisingly, even the costs have not been paid. The transfer of the Managing Director can hardly be a ground for the respondent-Corporation not to pay the cost of Rs. 10,000/-. This is a matter where the respondent is bent upon delaying the matter.”, It noted.
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).
Case Title : Malabar International Gold Designs Private Limited v. Anil Kumar K.V
Case Number : AR No. 263 of 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(KER) 76
The Kerala High Court has recently referred to arbitration a dispute between three Malabar Group companies and certain shareholders over allegations that the shareholders breached non-compete provisions in the companies' Articles of Association by becoming involved in rival jewellery businesses.
Justice S Manu was dealing with petitions filed by Malabar International Gold Designs Private Limited, Luster Gold Palace (India) Private Limited and Malabar Gold Supermarket (Kannur) Private Limited seeking appointment of an arbitrator.
The Court said it would not examine the merits of the shareholders' objections at this stage, as doing so would exceed the limited scope of the proceedings.
“If this Court ventures to address such contentions on merits, it may amount to transgression of the constricted jurisdiction under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996. I, therefore, refrain from making any observations on the merits of the contentions of both sides except rejecting the contention of the respondents that there is no binding arbitration agreement,” it said.
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.
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.
Orissa High Court
Case Title: Chief Engineer (Roads-1), Bhubaneswar v. M/s NKC Projects Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number: W.P.(C) No.35734 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(ORI) 17
The Orissa High Court has recently observed that a government authority cannot seek exemption from depositing an arbitral award amount merely on the ground of its status while seeking a stay.
Justice B.P. Routray upheld a Commercial Court order directing the Chief Engineer (Roads-1), Government of Odisha, to deposit the entire award of about Rs. 26.97 crore in a dispute with NKC Projects Pvt. Ltd.
The court held, “It cannot be contended on the part of the Petitioner that he being a Government authority is not required to be directed to deposit the award amount as a condition to stay enforcement of arbitration award in terms of Section 36(2) of the Act.”