LiveLawBiz Arbitration Weekly Digest: February 23 - February 28, 2026
Shivani PS
1 March 2026 6:25 PM IST
Nominal Index
BWL Limited (formerly Bhilai Wires Ltd.) v. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, 2026 LLBiz SC 81
Vedanta Limited (Cairn Oil and Gas Division) v. Gujarat State Petroleum Corporation Ltd., 2026 LLBiz SC 89
Union of India & Ors. v. Larsen & Toubro Limited, 2026 LLBiz SC 97
M/s Telexcell Information Systems Limited v. Tata Advanced Systems Limited, 2026 LLBiz HC (Del) 177
Divya Ashish Jamwal v. India Yamaha Motor Pvt Ltd., 2026 LLBiz HC (Del) 189
Geniemode Global Pvt. Ltd. v. Priyanka Impex Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., 2026 LLBiz HC (Del) 192
Railways Board, Ministry of Railways v. Titagarh Rail Systems Limited, 2026 LLBiz HC (Del) 202
Steel Authority of India Limited v. M/s Primetals Technologies India Pvt. Limited, 2026 LLBiz HC (Del) 190
Union of India v. M/s Rama Constructions Company, 2026 LLBiz HC (Del) 201
Mahajan Imaging Pvt Ltd v. Pushpawati Singhania Research Institute & Anr. 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 209
Sagar Asia Private Limited v. Mr. V. Agastya Sagar & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC (Tel) 6
Miot Hospitals Private Limited v. Dr. Balaraman Palaniappan, 2026 LLBiz HC (Mad) 55
Gpe (India) Ltd & Ors. v. Twarit Consultancy Services Private Ltd & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC (Mad) 54
Thomas Varghese v. M/s Sundaram Finance Limited & Anr., 2026 LLBiz HC (Mad) 57
Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority v. Mumbai Metro One Private Limited, 2026 LLBiz HC (Bom) 97
Khimchand Prithviraj Kothari v. M/s Earth Realtors, 2026 LLBiz HC (Bom) 94
The Highways Authority of India v. Rano Devi & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC (Jam) 6
S.D. Bhat v. Hindustan Construction Company Ltd. (HCC Ltd.) & Anr., 2026 LLBiz HC (Jam) 5
H.P. Singh & Co. v. Union of India & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC (Jam) 4
BSCPL Infrastructure Ltd. v. Public Works Department (Roads), 2026 LLBiz HC (Meg) 1
Progressive Construction Company Thru.Partner/ Authorized Signatory Badelal v Versus Engineer-In-Chief And H.O.D., Pwd And Others, 2026 LLBiz HC (ALL) 18
Supreme Court
Case Title : BWL Limited (formerly Bhilai Wires Ltd.) v. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited
Case Number : OMP (ENF.) (COMM.) 247/2023
Citation : 2026 LLBiz SC 81
The Supreme Court on Friday refused to interfere with a Delhi High Court ruling declaring that a 2000 arbitral award in favour of BWL Limited against Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited stands satisfied, concluding the dispute between the parties over the computation of post-award interest.
Dismissing a Special Leave Petition, a bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe observed, “We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court.”
Rejecting the contention that post-award interest was payable on the pendente lite interest, the High Court held, “In my opinion, the Supreme Court did not modify the direction passed by the Division Bench directing payment of interest only on the principal amount. The only modification effected by the Supreme Court was in respect of the period for which the post-award interest was payable.”
Supreme Court Upholds Delhi HC Refusal To Recall Arbitrator In Vedanta–GSPC Gas Block Dispute
Case Title : VEDANTA LIMITED (CAIRN OIL AND GAS DIVISION) VERSUS GUJARAT STATE PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD.
Case Number : Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 5072/2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz SC 89
The Supreme Court on Tuesday dismissed special leave petitions in the dispute between Vedanta Ltd (Cairn Oil & Gas Division) and Gujarat State Petroleum Corporation Ltd (GSPC). The court refused to interfere with the Delhi High Court's order declining to recall its earlier Section 11 appointment of an arbitrator and rejecting a related modification plea.
Dismissing the petitions, a bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Manmohan observed, “We do not find a good ground to interfere with the impugned order/judgment in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the special leave petitions stand dismissed.”
Vedanta had also sought modification of the court's direction on arbitrator fees. That application was dismissed as well.
The January 23, 2026 order of the High Court was challenged before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court declined to interfere and dismissed the petitions.
Case Title : Union of India & Ors. v. Larsen & Toubro Limited
Case Number : Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 14989 of 2023
Citation : 2026 LLBiz SC 97
The Supreme Court on Friday held that an arbitral tribunal cannot award pre-award or pendente lite interest when the contract expressly bars payment of interest, even if such amounts are granted in the guise of compensation.
A Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi ruled that “The provisions of the Act of 1996, including provisions contained in Section 31(7)(a) give paramount importance to the contract entered into between the parties and categorically restrict the power of an arbitrator to award pre-award/pendente lite interest when the parties have themselves agreed to the contrary."
The Court held, “Pre-award and post-award interest operate in distinct fields and a contractual bar applicable to the former cannot, by implication, be extended to the latter, and thus, any exclusion of post-award interest must be explicit and unambiguous.”
High Courts
Delhi High Court
Expiry Of Arbitrator's Mandate Due To Lapse Of Time Does Not End Arbitration: Delhi High Court
Case Title : M/s Telexcell Information Systems Limited v Tata Advanced Systems Limited
Case Number : O.M.P (MISC.)(COMM.) 832/2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 177
The Delhi High Court has observed that when an arbitrator's mandate expires due to lapse of time, it does not amount to termination of proceedings under Section 32, Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
A Single-Judge Bench of Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar additionally held that the expiry of mandate by lapse of time is curable and extended the arbitrator's mandate for a further period of six months from the date of the order for making the arbitral award.
The Court noted “...that both parties are ad idem that the pleadings in the arbitration stand completed and that the matter has reached the stage of evidence. In such circumstances, the interests of justice would be better served by facilitating the continuation and culmination of the arbitral proceedings rather than relegating the parties to a fresh round of litigation.”
Delhi High Court Sets Aside Award Ordering Yamaha To Repurchase Unsold Dealership Stock
Case Title : Divya Ashish Jamwal v. India Yamaha Motor Pvt Ltd
Case Number : FAO(OS) (COMM) 363/2019
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 189
Holding that an arbitral tribunal cannot “rewrite the bargain between the parties” or grant relief contrary to the contract, the Delhi High Court on Tuesday upheld the setting aside of an award that had directed India Yamaha Motor Pvt. Ltd. to take back unsold dealership stock and refund its price with 16% annual interest.
Dismissing the dealer's appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, a Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetrapal and Amit Mahajan held that the arbitral award had travelled beyond the terms of the Dealership Agreement.
“The learned Single Judge was justified in holding that the Arbitral Award travelled beyond the terms of the Agreement. The direction to refund the price of stock along with interest was not founded on any contractual stipulation and was premised on considerations extraneous to the Agreement,” the Court observed.
Case Title : Geniemode Global Pvt. Ltd. v. Priyanka Impex Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
Case Number : O.M.P. (MISC.) (COMM.) 150/2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 192
The Delhi High Court recently reiterated that once a dispute is taken to a Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council under the MSMED Act, jurisdiction to entertain challenges arising from those proceedings lies with courts at the location of the Council where the supplier is situated, even if the contract names a different arbitration seat.
Dismissing the petition for want of territorial jurisdiction, Justice Jasmeet Singh held,"Since it is the Facilitation Council at Panchkula, Haryana which has dealt with the issue in controversy, appointed the Arbitrator, conducted the arbitration proceedings, applying the principles of Harcharan Dass Gupta (supra) and Mahakali Foods (supra) as discussed above, is the Courts at the location of Facilitation Council where the supplier is located which will have jurisdiction. This Court lacks the jurisdiction to entertain and try the present petition."
Case Title : Railways Board, Ministry of Railways v. Titagarh Rail Systems Limited
Case Number : O.M.P. (COMM) 475/2024
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 202
The Delhi High Court has set aside a ₹5.19 crore arbitral award against the Railways Board after the Railways challenged the legality of the sole arbitrator it had appointed. The Court held that appointing a serving railway officer as arbitrator, without an express written waiver by both parties, rendered the award void from the beginning.
Allowing a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Justice Avneesh Jhingan held, “The appointment of a serving employee as an arbitrator falls within the teeth of Section 12(5) read with Schedule VII of the Act. The appointment being void ab initio rendered impugned award nullity.”
“In none of the documents relied upon there is an express agreement in writing waiving the rigours of Section 12(5). The short-listing of two names from the four names proposed by the petitioner cannot be considered to be compliance and the waiver has to be specific and not to be implied from conduct,” the Court observed. Holding that statutory ineligibility strikes at the root of jurisdiction and cannot be cured by participation in proceedings, the Court declared the appointment void ab initio and set aside the award.
Case Title : Steel Authority Of India Limited Versus M/S Primetals Technologies India Pvt. Limited
Case Number : O.M.P. (COMM) 451/2023 & I.A. 21931/2023
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 190
Reiterating that courts cannot rewrite commercial contracts while exercising jurisdiction under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the Delhi High Court has upheld an arbitral award directing Steel Authority of India Ltd (SAIL) to refund Rs. 1.40 crore deducted from a contractor's final bill over an alleged shortfall in Minimum Guaranteed CENVAT Credit (MGCC).
Justice Avneesh Jhingan held that interpretation of contractual clauses lies within the domain of the arbitral tribunal and a court under Section 34 cannot sit in appeal over a plausible view taken by the arbitrator.
“The award was passed after considering the relevant clauses of the contract. The interpretation by the arbitrator is not only plausible but in the absence of any clause providing for deduction on account of shortfall in MGCC, is the only interpretation possible,” the Court observed.
Case Title : Union of India v. M/s Rama Constructions Company
Case Number : O.M.P. (COMM) 312/2020
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 201
The Delhi High Court on 25 February, upheld an arbitral award granting Rs. 80.05 lakh along with 10% interest to Rama Constructions Company in a dispute arising from civil and electrical works executed at the Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium Complex, New Delhi.
Dismissing the Union of India's challenge, Justice Jasmeet Singh reiterated the limited scope of judicial interference, noting that the Arbitrator's findings were evidence-based and did not warrant interference under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Justice Singh observed:
“I am of the view, that the contention of the petitioner that the said claim was adjudicated by the Arbitrator in contravention of the Contract Agreement and is consequently perverse, cuts no ice. The Arbitrator has carefully undertaken a fact grounded appreciation of the entire claim and material placed on record. Be that as it may, in proceedings under Section 34 of the Act, such a fact based and evidence driven determination is entitled to be upheld.”
Contracts Terminable For Breach With Cure Period Not Determinable: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Mahajan Imaging Pvt Ltd v. Pushpawati Singhania Research Institute & Anr.
Case Number:O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 29/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 209
The Delhi High Court has recently observed that a contract which permits termination only for material breach and subject to a mandatory cure period is not “in its nature determinable” under Section 14(d) of the Specific Relief Act. Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar stayed the operation and effect of the termination notice dated January 2, 2026, issued by Pushpawati Singhania Research Institute (PSRI) to Mahajan Imaging Pvt Ltd. He also directed both sides to maintain status quo until the dispute is decided through arbitration
Telangana High Court
Case Title : Sagar Asia Private Limited v. Mr. V. Agastya Sagar & Ors
Case Number : Writ Petition No. 37432 of 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (TEL) 6
The Telangana High Court has recently held that its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution cannot be invoked to challenge an arbitral tribunal's rejection of a jurisdictional objection when the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 provides a specific post-award remedy.
Dismissing a writ petition filed by Sagar Asia Private Limited, a Division Bench of Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice Gadi Praveen Kumar held that the petitioner must await the arbitral award and pursue remedies under Sections 34 and 37 of the Act.
“The petitioner's choice of forum is entirely misplaced as a clear statutory remedy is available under section 16(6) of the Act. That stage has not yet been reached. There is no conceivable reason as to why the Writ Court would impede the momentum of the arbitral proceedings midway,” the court observed.
Examining the statutory framework under Sections 16, 34 and 37 of the Act, the High Court held that once a plea under Section 16 is rejected, the arbitral tribunal is required to continue the proceedings and render its award. Only thereafter can the aggrieved party challenge the award under Section 34. If that challenge fails, an appeal lies under Section 37(1)(c).
Madras High Court
Case Title : MIOT Hospitals Private Limited v. Dr. Balaraman Palaniappan
Case Number : Arb.O.P.(Com.Div.) No.708 of 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 55
Holding that hospitals cannot restrain doctors from practicing their profession after termination of service, the Madras High Court has ruled that post-contract non-compete and non-solicitation clauses in doctor agreements are opposed to public policy and void under the Indian Contract Act. The court said such clauses are unlawful, unenforceable, and void ab initio.
Dismissing a petition filed by MIOT Hospitals Private Limited seeking appointment of a sole arbitrator against cardiothoracic surgeon Dr. Balaraman Palaniappan, Justice N. Anand Venkatesh imposed costs of Rs1 lakh on the hospital, finding that there was no surviving arbitrable dispute.
“An agreement entered into by a doctor with a hospital, which contains a non solicitation and or non compete clause, is certainly opposed to public policy and such an agreement is squarely hit by Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. Consequently, it must be held to be unlawful, unenforceable and void ab initio to that extent,” the Court held.
Madras High Court Attaches ₹154.63 Crore SEPC Receivables, Appoints PwC To Audit Financial Position
Case Title : GPE(INDIA) Ltd and Ors v. Twarit Consultancy Services Private Ltd and Ors
Case Number : EP Nos.7 of 2024, 91&92 of 2023, 15&16 of 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 54
The Madras High Court recently ordered interim attachment of Rs. 154.63 crore from the trade receivables of SEPC Limited, formerly known as Shriram EPC Limited, and appointed an independent auditor to examine its financial position, observing that it “cannot sit like a lame duck” while awaiting submissions from banks claiming charge over the company's assets.
Justice N. Anand Venkatesh passed the order in execution petitions filed by GPE (India) Ltd. seeking enforcement of a foreign arbitral award dated January 7, 2021, passed by the Singapore International Arbitration Centre.
“In the absence of any other security available and considering the huge amount that is due and payable to the award holder, this order of interim attachment is warranted,” the judge held.
Arbitrator Appointed By Agreed Institution Not Per Se Unilateral: Madras High Court
Case Title : Thomas Varghese v. M/s Sundaram Finance Limited & Anr
Case Number : Arb.OP (Com.Div.) No.598 of 2023
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 57
Drawing a clear distinction between unilateral appointments and institutional nominations, the Madras High Court has held that an arbitrator appointed by an arbitral institution agreed upon by the parties cannot automatically be treated as a unilateral appointee, even if one side initiates the process.
“The appointment of Arbitral Tribunal by an institution that is agreed upon between the parties per se cannot be dealt with in the same manner in which the Court deals with an unilateral appointment of an Arbitrator,” Justice N. Anand Venkatesh observed while upholding an arbitral award in favour of Sundaram Finance Limited.
At the same time, the court cautioned that financial institutions cannot bypass settled law by creating so-called arbitral bodies as a ruse. Referring to developments after the Supreme Court's rulings on unilateral appointments, the judge noted that some entities have formed associations and described them as arbitral institutions in order to “get over the judgment of the Apex Court.” Courts, he said, must test the credibility and integrity of such institutions whenever objections are raised.
Bombay High Court
Case Title : Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority v. Mumbai Metro One Private Limited along with IA and Connected Matter
Case Number : Commercial Arbitration Petition No. 427 of 2024
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 97
The Bombay High Court has partly upheld the Rs. 496.48 crore arbitral award in favour of Mumbai Metro One Private Limited arising from the Metro Line 1 project, but has set aside nearly Rs. 248 crore awarded under three heads of damages, finding that those components were not backed by evidence.
Justice Sandeep V. Marne underscored that courts are required to respect the finality of arbitral awards and cannot interfere lightly. At the same time, he made it clear that intervention is justified where findings are perverse, legally untenable, or unsupported by evidence.
It observed, "Guesswork cannot be a short cut for production of evidence. Guesswork can be undertaken only when it is impossible to compute the exact quantum of losses suffered by the injured party. If evidence of sufferance of loss itself is not available, the Arbitral Tribunal cannot award damages of lesser sum than the one by presuming holding that some loss must have been suffered. When award of damages itself is not warranted due to absence of evidence, awarded claim cannot be sustained before Section 34 Court because the Tribunal awards far lesser sum or conservative sum than the one demanded."
Case Title : Khimchand Prithviraj Kothari Versus M/s. Earth Realtors
Case Number : Commercial Arbitration Petition (L) No. 37842 Of 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 94
The Bombay High Court has partly modified an arbitral tribunal's interim order in a redevelopment dispute, holding that the tribunal exceeded the scope of interim protection in prescribing the manner in which Transferable Development Rights (TDR) could be sold.
Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan was hearing an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, filed by landowner Khimchand Prithviraj Kothari against an interim order passed in favour of developer Earth Realtors.
“A plain reading of the right of first refusal framework… would indicate a new contractual arrangement that has been created,” the court observed. The court modified the directions to require prior notice to both the owner and the arbitral tribunal before any TDR sale, made such sale subject to tribunal approval, and directed that the proceeds be deposited in a separate bank account to be used only for redevelopment, with monthly disclosures.
Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court
Case Title : The Highways Authority of India through its Project Director Bharat Bhushan vs Rano Devi & Ors.
Case Number : WP(C) No.82/2024
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (JAM) 6
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has held that an arbitral award determining compensation under the National Highways Act cannot be interfered with in a Section 37 appeal merely because another view on valuation is possible.
Dismissing two appeals filed by the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI), Justice Javed Iqbal Wani reiterated that Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 provides only a limited right of appeal.
The Court further clarified that the Appellate Court under Section 37 supra cannot re-appreciate the evidence, re-evaluate factual findings or substitute its own view merely because another view is possible and that the errorsof fact or erroneous appreciation of evidence by the Arbitrator would not constitute valid grounds for interference, unless such errors go to the root of the matter and fall within the narrow category of patent illegality or contravention of fundamental policy of Indian law"
Venue Of Arbitration Is Seat In Absence Of Contrary Indication: J&K&L High Court
Case Title : S.D.Bhat vs Hindustan Construction Company Ltd (HCC Ltd) & Anr., 2026
Case Number : Arb P No.21/2021
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (JAM) 5
The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladkah High Court has recently reiterated that where an arbitration clause designates a particular place as the “venue” of arbitration and there is no contrary indication, such place must be treated as the “seat” of arbitration, thereby conferring exclusive jurisdiction on courts at that location.
"It is, thus settled that whenever there is mention of place of arbitration in an arbitration clause as being the venue of arbitration proceedings, it would really mean the seat of arbitral proceedings. This is so because the expression “arbitration/ arbitral proceedings” does not refer to individual hearing but conveys that entire arbitration process including making of the award shall be conducted at the place referred to as venue‟, the court observed.
Case Title : H.P.Singh & Co. Vs Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : AA No.5/2018
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (JAM) 4
The Jammu & Kashmir & Ladakh High Court on 13 February 2026 held that once a contractor voluntarily executes a supplementary agreement rescinding the original contract and issues an unconditional “No Claim Certificate,” no arbitral dispute survives.
A Bench of Justice Sanjeev Kumar dismissed the petition filed by H.P. Singh & Co. under Section 11(6) of the J&K Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1997, seeking appointment of an independent arbitrator against the Union of India and Northern Railways. Since the petitioner had voluntarily executed the supplementary agreement rescinding the arbitration clause and subsequently issued a No Claim Certificate without protest, the dispute was deemed settled by accord and satisfaction.
Meghalaya High Court
Meghalaya High Court Upholds BSCPL's 5-Year Blacklisting For Alleged Corruption In NH-44E Project
Case Title : BSCPL Infrastructure Ltd vs Public Works Department (Roads)
Case Number : WA No.3/2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (MEG) 1
The Meghalaya High Court has recently upheld the five-year blacklisting of BSCPL Infrastructure Ltd by the State Public Works Department (Roads) for engaging in corrupt practices during execution of a National Highway project.
The court held that the department was justified in acting on ledger entries showing expenditure on liquor, electronic items, hotel bills and donations for government officials during execution of a National Highway project.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice W. Diengdoh dismissed the company's writ appeal. The Bench affirmed the order dated December 3, 2024 debarring the joint venture from participating in future PWD tenders. It also upheld the Single Judge's judgment dated December 17, 2025 dismissing the writ petition.
“We find that no interference is warranted either in the order dated 3rd December, 2024, blacklisting the appellant-JV or in the order impugned dated 17th December, 2025, passed by the learned Single Judge in WP (C) No.24 of 2025,” the court observed.
Allahabad High Court
Sole Arbitrator May Be Appointed To Reduce Costs Despite Three-Member Clause: Allahabad High Court
Case Title: Progressive Construction Company Thru.Partner/ Authorized Signatory Badelal v Versus Engineer-In-Chief And H.O.D., Pwd And Others
Case Number: CIVIL MISC. ARBITRATION APPLICATION No. - 19 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (ALL) 18
The Allahabad High Court has held that where an arbitration clause provides for a three-member tribunal but the parties fail to appoint arbitrators, the Court can appoint a sole arbitrator if a party seeks it to reduce costs.