LiveLawBiz Arbitration Cases Weekly Digest: August 24 - August 29, 2026
Shivani PS
31 Aug 2026 10:57 AM IST
NOMINAL INDEX
Shri Jankiraman Maharaj v. National Highway Authority of India and Others, 2026 LLBiz HC (MP) 60
Moshers v. Shri Mittal Agritech Pvt. Ltd., 2026 LLBiz HC (MP) 61
Sugat Jain v. Amit Jain & Anr. (with connected matter), 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 889
August Purple Services Private Limited & Anr. v. Axis Trustee Services Limited & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 891
General Manager Telecom District Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd v. Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council and Others, 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 888
Orbit In-Te-Rio v. American Epay Services Pvt. Ltd., 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 868
J. Murugavel v. Pichai, 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 243
Road Construction Department v. Ramky Infrastructure Limited, 2026 LLBiz HC (JHAR) 17
M/s Abraq Infrastructures LLP v. UT of J&K & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC (JAM) 26
ZEE Learn Limited v. Beauty Singh, 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 476
Qwik Supply Chain Private Limited v. CRPL Infra Private Limited, 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 475
COAF FZE v. Avanikailani Commodities LLC & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 150
Jaipur Development Authority & Anr. v. Rohan Rajdeep Rajasthan Infra Project Limited, 2026 LLBiz HC (RAJ) 37
Sandip Singla v. Jagdeb Chand Gupta, 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 201
M/S S. H. Infratech Pvt. Ltd. Thru. M.D. Mrs. Rabia Khatoon v. Govt. Of U.P. Thru. Chief Engineer, National Highways And Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC (ALL) 68
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Madhya Pradesh HC Reiterates Three-Year Limitation Law Cannot Bar Landowner's Claim Under NH Act
Case Title : Shri Jankiraman Maharaj v. National Highway Authority of India and Others
Case Number : Arbitration Appeal No. 40 of 2022
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (MP) 60
The Madhya Pradesh High Court on 10 August set aside an order upholding an arbitral award that had rejected a landowner's claim for enhancement of compensation for land acquired for widening National Highway No. 12.
Justice Deepak Khot reiterated that the three-year limitation period under Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 does not apply to statutory arbitration proceedings under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956, and that the Arbitrator must adopt a justice-oriented approach while considering claims for enhancement of compensation. The Bench observed:
“In view of the aforesaid legal position, in the considered opinion of this Court, the Arbitrator was not justified in applying Article 137 of the Act of 1963 and dismissing the appellant's application solely on the ground of delay and laches without examining the claim for enhancement of compensation on its merits. The learned Civil/Commercial Court has also failed to consider the aforesaid legal position while affirming the order of the Arbitrator.”
Foreign Award Can Be Enforced And Executed By High Court In A Single Proceeding: Madhya Pradesh HC
Case Title: Moshers v. Shri Mittal Agritech Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : Arbitration Case No. 56 of 2024
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (MP) 61
The Madhya Pradesh High Court on 21 August held that a foreign arbitral award can be enforced and executed by the High Court in the same proceeding without requiring a separate execution case before a subordinate court.
Justice Vinay Saraf rejected the oral objections raised by Shri Mittal Agritech Pvt. Ltd. to execution of the foreign award obtained by Moshers, holding that once a foreign award is declared enforceable under Sections 47 and 48 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, it becomes a deemed decree of the High Court under Section 49 and can be executed by the High Court itself. The Bench observed:
“As the definition of 'Court' in explanation to Section 47 provides that the High Court will be the competent Court for deciding the enforceability, the award is required to be executed by the High Court as the decree passed by the High Court. Therefore, the oral objections raised by the respondent are not tenable and are hereby rejected.”
Delhi High Court
Case Title : Sugat Jain v. Amit Jain & Anr. (with connected matter)
Case Number : ARB.P. 1461/2026 & O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 298/2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 889
The Delhi High Court on 21 August held that a party's reasonable time to appoint an arbitrator cannot be assessed merely by counting the days after a formal arbitration notice, and that courts must also consider earlier litigation, failed mediation and attempts to agree on an arbitrator.
Justice Om Prakash Shukla rejected a prematurity objection in a family partnership dispute and appointed former Supreme Court Judge Justice (Retd.) Ravindra Bhat as sole arbitrator to adjudicate disputes between Sugat Jain, Amit Jain and another family member concerning Aero Enterprises. The Bench observed:
“In view of this court, what constitutes a reasonable time must necessarily depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. It cannot be determined by mechanically counting the number of days elapsed after the formal notice under Section 21 is sent. Where the parties had already been engaged in disputes, court proceedings, mediation and discussion concerning appointment of an Arbitrator, those circumstances must legitimately be taken into account while considering whether the agreed appointment procedure has failed.”
Case Title : August Purple Services Private Limited & Anr. v. Axis Trustee Services Limited & Ors.
Case Number : FAO(OS) (COMM) 224/2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 891
On 20 August, a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court set aside a Single Judge's order appointing a retired Supreme Court judge as sole arbitrator to resolve disputes between August Purple Services Private Limited, Axis Trustee Services Limited and other parties, after both sides agreed that the arbitration was an international commercial arbitration.
Justices C. Hari Shankar and Vinod Kumar observed that an arbitration becomes an international commercial arbitration where one of the parties is based outside India. Therefore, the High Court did not have jurisdiction to appoint an arbitrator, as such power rests with the Supreme Court. They stated:
“The contention that the arbitration would be an international commercial arbitration is predicated on the fact that one of the parties to the arbitral proceedings, viz. Ace Turtle Global Pte Ltd, is based in Singapore. We find this to be correct. In any case, on the fact that the arbitration would be an international commercial arbitration, learned Counsel are, as we have already noted, ad idem.”
“That being so, this Court could not have appointed an arbitrator to arbitrate on the dispute.”
Delhi High Court Says Writ Courts Should Not Pre-empt MSMED Arbitration, Dismisses BSNL Plea
Case Title General Manager Telecom District Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd v. Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council and Others
Case Number W.P.(C) 12298/2026
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 888
On 26 August, the Delhi High Court dismissed a petition filed by the General Manager, Telecom District, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL), challenging the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council's (MSEFC) reference of a dispute to the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC) and the consequential arbitration proceedings.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma held that writ courts should not pre-emptively interfere with arbitration proceedings under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (MSMED Act) merely because a party challenges the maintainability of a claim or the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal, when such objections can be raised before the tribunal itself. She observed:
“The aforesaid objections essentially relate to the maintainability of the claim and the jurisdiction of the forum constituted under the MSMED Act. However, merely because an objection relates to the jurisdiction of the Arbitral Tribunal, the same would not, by itself, justify exercise of jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, particularly when such objection can be raised before and considered by the learned Arbitral Tribunal under the statutory scheme governing arbitration.”
Closure of Interim Pleas for Non-Payment of Arbitral Fees Not Appealable: Delhi High Court
Case Title : Orbit In-Te-Rio v. American Epay Services Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : ARB. A. (COMM.) 53/2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 868
The Delhi High Court on 18 August held that an arbitral tribunal's order closing a party's interim relief applications and counterclaim for non-payment of arbitral fees is procedural and does not amount to an order granting or refusing interim relief appealable under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Justice Om Prakash Shukla dismissed as non-maintainable the appeal filed by Orbit In-Te-Rio against American Epay Services Pvt. Ltd., while granting the former liberty to seek recall of the closure order before the arbitral tribunal. The Bench observed:
“It is clear from the above that the impugned order is procedural in nature and consequently, appropriate remedy was to seek re-call of the impugned order since, the impugned direction does not fall within the express language of Section 37(2)(b), which permits an appeal from an order 'granting or refusing to grant an interim measure under Section 17'.”
Madras High Court
Court Holds Court Fee Cannot Be Retained For Non-Maintainable Appeal: Madras High Court
Case Title : J. Murugavel v. Pichai
Case Number : Arb Appeal (MD) No. 63 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 243
The Madras High Court on 6 August held that court fee paid for an appeal that is not maintainable cannot be retained by the State, as such collection would be without the authority of law and result in unjust enrichment.
A Division Bench comprising Justices G.R. Swaminathan and K.K. Ramakrishnan refused to entertain J. Murugavel's appeal against Pichai, Proprietor of Vel Murugan Traders, filed under Section 37(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, challenging a final arbitral award. It held:
“When an arbitration appeal against a final award will not lie before the High Court under Section 37 of the 1996 Act, the acceptance of court-fee paid therefor is without the authority of law. This is one more reason for ordering refund. If refund is not ordered, there would be unjust enrichment for the State.”
Jharkhand High Court
Jharkhand High Court Rejects State's Challenge To Delhi As Arbitral Seat After 2.5 Years
Case Title : Road Construction Department v. Ramky Infrastructure Limited
Case Number : W.P.(C) No.4806 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (JHAR) 17
The Jharkhand High Court on 20 August, dismissed the Jharkhand Road Construction Department's challenge to an Arbitral Tribunal's decision fixing Delhi as the seat of arbitration in its dispute with Ramky Infrastructure Limited.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Ananda Sen held that the Department's continued participation in the proceedings without a timely objection amounted to waiver under Section 4 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. He explained:
“The 'seat of arbitration' is the juridical home of arbitration. The seat of arbitration is an anchor and determines the procedural law and the Courts that will exercise supervisory jurisdiction over the arbitration…This seat of arbitration cannot be changed or varied. It remains constant and static, because a procedural law governing the arbitration and the supervisory jurisdiction of Courts over the arbitration proceeding cannot be allowed to change in the midst of an arbitration proceeding.”
Jammu & Kashmir And Ladakh High Court
J&K And Ladakh High Court Holds SIDCO MD Ineligible To Act As Arbitrator In Contract Dispute With UT
Case Title : M/s Abraq Infrastructures LLP v. UT of J&K & Ors.
Case Number : Arb P 11/2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(JAM) 26
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh on 21 August held that the Managing Director of J&K State Industrial Development Corporation (SIDCO) was ineligible to act as an arbitrator in a dispute between Abraq Infrastructures LLP and the Union Territory, as he was an employee of one of the respondents.
Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Kumar allowed Abraq Infrastructures LLP's petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and appointed a Retired District and Sessions Judge as the Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes arising between the parties. He observed:
“The Managing Director, SIDCO being an employee of respondent No. 1, and thus a person having an interest in the outcome of the dispute, is rendered ineligible, by operation of Section 12(5) read with the Seventh Schedule of the Act.”
Bombay High Court
Case Title : ZEE Learn Limited v. Beauty Singh
Case Number : Commercial Arbitration Petition (L) No. 20863 of 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 476
The Bombay High Court on 25 August restrained Beauty Singh, a former franchisee of ZEE Learn Limited, from using “KIDZEE”, “KIDGEE” or any deceptively or phonetically similar name for her school pending arbitration.
Justice Amit Borkar partly allowed ZEE Learn's petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (which permits courts to grant interim measures in arbitration related disputes), holding that the trademark dispute arising from the parties' franchise agreement was capable of arbitration. He held:
“Therefore, only because the dispute concerns a trademark, it does not go outside the arbitration agreement. The Court has to see what is the actual right which is being enforced and from where that right arises.”
MSME Registration Does Not Automatically Override Existing Arbitration Agreement: Bombay High Court
Case Title : Qwik Supply Chain Private Limited v. CRPL Infra Private Limited
Case Number : Commercial Arbitration Application No. 377 of 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 475
The Bombay High Court on 25 August held that registration under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (MSMED Act) does not by itself override an agreed contractual arbitration mechanism, where the statutory process before the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council has not actually been invoked.
Justice Amit Borkar allowed Qwik Supply Chain Private Limited's application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and appointed Advocate Vikramjit Grewal as sole arbitrator in its Rs. 76.67 lakh dispute with CRPL Infra Private Limited. The Bench observed:
“Position cannot be understood to mean that registration as MSME removes every arbitration agreement contained in contract. Statutory conditions and factual position have to be considered. A statement that party intends to approach Facilitation Council is different from actual reference under Section 18(1). Statutory process cannot be treated as having commenced merely because one party expressed intention to invoke such remedy.”
Karnataka High Court
Karnataka High Court Restrains Sale Of 386.541 MT Cashews, Says Arbitration Orders Bind Strangers
Case Title : COAF FZE v. Avanikailani Commodities LLC & Ors.
Case Number : AP.IM. 8 of 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 150
On 27 August, the Karnataka High Court granted interim protection to UAE-based cashew trading company COAF FZE over 386.541 metric tonnes of raw cashew nuts lying in 15 containers at New Mangalore Port, restraining UAE-based supplier Avanikailani Commodities LLC, Indian cashew trader Sindhu Cashew India Pvt. Ltd. and two individuals claiming rights over the cargo from selling, transferring, diverting or otherwise dealing with it.
Justice M.G.S. Kamal held that an interim order preserving the subject matter of arbitration can bind even a stranger to the arbitration agreement who claims an independent right over the disputed property. The Bench observed:
“A stranger who voluntarily gets himself impleaded, staking independent right, title, and interest over the subject matter of the arbitration, and fails to prima facie establish and justify his claims over the subject matter of the arbitration cannot seek to wriggle out of the binding nature of preventive orders that may be granted to preserve the subject matter of the arbitration either.”
Rajasthan High Court
Case Title :Jaipur Development Authority & Anr. v. Rohan Rajdeep Rajasthan Infra Project Limited
Case Number : D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1560/2025v
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(RAJ) 37
The Rajasthan High Court on 17 August set aside an arbitral award granting Rs. 198.04 crore to Rohan Rajdeep Rajasthan Infra Project Limited against the Jaipur Development Authority (JDA) and the Rajasthan Government in connection with the Ghat Ki Guni BOT tunnel project.
A Division Bench comprising Justices Arun Monga and Sandeep Taneja allowed JDA and the State's appeal and held that an arbitrator cannot shift contractual risks allocated to a developer or award compensation without identifying a corresponding contractual breach. The judges observed:
“Once the parties had consciously allocated the risk of investigation, survey and design to the concessionaire under the aforesaid clauses, the learned Sole Arbitrator could not have invoked the mandate of Section 28(3) of the Act of 1996 and thus, fastened the financial consequences of redesign upon JDA without first locating a contractual stipulation displacing burden of that allocation. The award identifies no such stipulation, and the effective transfer of the design risk from the respondent to the appellants runs counter to the express terms of the Concession Agreement.”
Calcutta High Court
Section 69 Partnership Act Does Not Bar Arbitration Without Dissolution Plea: Calcutta High Court
Case Title : Sandip Singla v. Jagdeb Chand Gupta
Case Number : AO-COM/38/2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 201
The Calcutta High Court on 20 August observed that Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, which restricts suits by unregistered partnership firms to enforce contractual rights, does not bar arbitration between partners merely because dissolution of the partnership has not been sought.
A Division Bench of Justices Debangsu Basak and Aryak Dutt set aside the arbitral award in the dispute between Sandip Singla and Jagdeb Chand Gupta, holding that the arbitrator had travelled beyond the scope of reference by creating a rotational management arrangement that gave each partner exclusive control of the partnership business for alternating periods, rendering the award contrary to public policy. It held:
“In our view, Section 69 of the Act of 1932, regulates the filing of suits by an unregistered partnership firm. It does not speak on the issue as sought to be contended on behalf of the respondent before us. One of the contentions of the respondent is that, since, the respondent did not pray for dissolution of the partnership firm, the arbitration proceeding itself is not maintainable and, therefore, the award passed in such arbitration proceedings needs to be set aside.”
Allahabad High Court
Case Title : M/S S. H. Infratech Pvt. Ltd. Thru. M.D. Mrs. Rabia Khatoon v. Govt. Of U.P. Thru. Chief Engineer, National Highways And Ors.
Case Number : CIVIL MISC. ARBITRATION APPLICATION No. - 56 of 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (ALL) 68
The Allahabad High Court on 20 August held that Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is a default provision that can be invoked only when parties are unable to secure the appointment of an arbitrator through the procedure agreed upon in their contract, and cannot be used to replace an agreed three-member tribunal with a sole arbitrator.
Justice Jaspreet Singh dismissed S. H. Infratech Pvt. Ltd's petition seeking appointment of a sole arbitrator, holding that where a party fails to nominate an arbitrator to fill a vacancy, the remedy lies under Section 11(4), while any failure by the tribunal to conclude proceedings within the prescribed time must be addressed through an application for extension under Section 29-A. The Bench held:
“Section 11(6) is a default clause and only when the parties are unable to get an Arbitrator appointed in terms of the settled and agreed rules, can the default clause come into picture. It does not give any independent right to the court in terms of Section 11 to override the terms of the contract to appoint an Arbitrator.”