LiveLawBiz Arbitration Cases Weekly Digest: June 7 - June 13, 2026
Shivani PS
15 Jun 2026 11:19 AM IST
Nominal Index
VE Commercial Vehicles v. M/s Singh Enterprises, 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 615
Air Force Naval Housing Board v. M/s NG Constructions, 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 614
M/s Amber Electrotech Ltd. & Anr. v. M/s Dollar Security & Support Services, 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 605
Morgan Securities and Credits Pvt. Ltd. v. BPL Limited & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 613
Conscient Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. Mr. Mahesh Kapoor & Anr., 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 611
Mr. Pathan Imrankhan Zafarullakhan & Anr. v. Microsoft Corporation, 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 610
National Highways Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited v. Sadhguru Engineers and Allied Services Pvt. Ltd. & Others, 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 595
Bb Coachtech India Private Limited v. The Presiding Officer, Commercial Court and Another, 2026 LLBiz HC (ALL) 49
Trans Lighting Ltd. v. Madhyanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam, 2026 LLBiz HC (ALL) 47
Indian Oil Corporation Limited v. M/s Kumar Filling Station, 2026 LLBiz HC (ALL) 46
Mohan Singh (Deceased) Through LRs. v. NHAI & Another, 2026 LLBiz HC (HP) 24
Oil Field Instrumentation India Pvt. Ltd. v. Xcalibur Multiphysics Group S.L. & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 308
Adtrack Media LLP v. Happy Valley Homes CHS Federation Ltd., 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 313
Ajeet Madhukar Mulay v. Abhyudaya Co-Operative Bank Limited & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 321
Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited v. Sapura Fabrication SDN BHD (now known as VTEB Fabrication SDN BHD), 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 326
Shashisumeet Production Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. Kuresh R. Kushesh @ Dhiren, 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 320
Fimbank P.L.C. v. Mr. Rajeev Suresh Bhatia & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 319
Paharpur Cooling Towers Ltd. v. Siemens Ltd., 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 316
Tata Capital Financial Services Ltd. v. Priyanka Communications (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 315
Sagarmal Agarwal v. Deputy Chief Engineer, South Eastern Central Railway, Bilaspur, 2026 LLBiz HC (CHH) 14
S.K. Samanta Co. (P) Ltd. v. South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd., 2026 LLBiz HC (CHH) 15
Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. SPML Infra Limited & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 141
The Administrator, Isha Foundation v. BSNL, 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 142
M/s MHPL Infra JV & Ors. v. RITES Limited & Anr., 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 147
Kobelco Construction Equipment India Private Limited v. Lara Mining & Anr., 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 149
Ambica Praveesh v. BMH Care Hospital Ltd., 2026 LLBiz HC (KER) 102
Delhi High Court
Withdrawn Civil Suit Does Not Bar Invocation Of Arbitration Clause: Delhi High Court
Case Title : VE Commercial Vehicles v. M/s Singh Enterprises
Case Number : ARB.P. 1778/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 615
The Delhi High Court has recently held that the filing of an earlier civil suit does not bar a party from invoking an arbitration clause where the suit was subsequently withdrawn.
The court observed, “Mere fact that earlier a civil suit had been filed, would be no bar to invoke arbitration in terms of the Arbitration Clause, especially, when the said suit had been withdrawn.”
Justice Mini Pushkarna made the observation while appointing Justice (Retd.) Kurian Joseph, former judge of the Supreme Court, as the Presiding Arbitrator in disputes between VE Commercial Vehicles Ltd. (VECV) and its former dealer, Singh Enterprises.
Case Title : Air Force Naval Housing Board v M/s NG Constructions
Case Number : O.M.P. (COMM) 497/2022, I.A. 21446/2022 & I.A. 31600/2025, O.M.P. (COMM) 116/2023
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 614
On 26 May, the Delhi High Court reiterated that waiver of the applicability of Section 12(5) read with the Seventh Schedule of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act cannot be inferred from conduct and must arise only from an express written agreement between the parties.
A Bench of Justice Avneesh Jhingan set aside an arbitral award in a dispute between a developer and the Air Force Naval Housing Board (AFNHB) concerning construction of a residential complex. It observed:
“The unilateral appointment in absence of an express agreement in writing between the parties to waive applicability of Section 12(5) of the Act is void ab initio. The filing of the statement of claim or participation in the arbitral proceedings cannot be construed as waiver under the proviso to Section 12(5) of the Act. The unilateral appointment of the arbitrator can be objected to for the first time under Section 34 of the Act.”
Defendant Cannot Invoke Arbitration Clause After Participating In Trial Without Objection: Delhi HC
Case Title : M/s Amber Electrotech Ltd. & Anr. v. M/s Dollar Security & Support Services
Case Number: RFA No. 242/2020, CM APPL. 25169/2020 & CM APPL. 28465/2020
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 605
The Delhi High Court on 3 June reiterated that a defendant who files a written statement and participates in the trial without seeking reference to arbitration at the appropriate stage cannot later invoke an arbitration clause to challenge the maintainability of the suit.
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna upheld a recovery decree of Rs. 2.91 lakh in favour of Dollar Security & Support Services against Amber Electrotech Ltd., finding that the company had never disputed the outstanding invoice dues and had merely raised technical objections and theft-related claims to resist payment. The Bench held:
“However, here was the case where the Written Statement was duly filed by the Appellant and thereafter, participated in the entire trial. Therefore, it is clearly evident that despite there being an Arbitration Clause, the Appellant had participated and submitted to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. This objection was also rightly dismissed by the learned District Judge.”
Delhi HC Refers Morgan Securities–BPL Post-Award Dispute To Arbitration, Appoints Justice U.U. Lalit
Case Title: Morgan Securities and Credits Pvt. Ltd. v. BPL Limited & Ors.
Case Number: O.M.P.(I)(COMM.) 173/2026 and ARB.P. 835/2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 613
On 29 May, the Delhi High Court referred the disputes between Morgan Securities and Credits Pvt. Ltd. and BPL Limited to arbitration, appointed former Chief Justice of India Justice U.U. Lalit as sole arbitrator, and continued interim protection restraining alteration of BPL's assets, management, and control structure pending arbitration.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar held that alleged post-award breaches arising from subsequent transactions can give rise to a fresh and independent arbitrable dispute, even though the earlier arbitral award had attained finality after the Supreme Court dismissed BPL Limited's challenge in 2025. He observed:
“this Court finds that each of the above transactions and findings by the Petitioner constitutes a distinct act, alleged to be in breach of Clause 6 of the contractual framework, in respect of which, Arbitration was invoked vide Notice dated 20.12.2025. The present invocation cannot be characterised as a re-agitation of disputes already adjudicated, being in response to subsequent and independent acts of alleged contractual violation. While the agreement remains unchanged, the disputes, being founded on fresh transactions, are clearly distinct and capable of independent reference to Arbitration.”
Case Title: Conscient Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. Mr. Mahesh Kapoor & Anr.
Case Number : O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 138/2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 611
The Delhi High Court has recently held that mere invocation of statutory restrictions on specific performance cannot, by itself, justify refusal of interim protective relief in arbitration proceedings.
It observed that such objections must be clearly established before a court can decline measures aimed at preserving the subject matter of a dispute pending arbitration.
Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar made the observation while granting interim protection to Conscient Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. in a dispute concerning a proposed 6.76-acre development project in Delhi's Aya Nagar.
“This court is of the considered opinion that once the statutory framework itself favours enforcement of contractual obligations, the exceptions restraining such enforcement cannot be expansively construed at the threshold stage so as to defeat the very subject matter of arbitration. Mere invocation of Sections 14 or 41 of the SRA, without a clear and unimpeachable demonstration that the case squarely falls within the statutory prohibitions, cannot by itself compel the Court, at a prima facie stage, to decline protective interim measures.”, the court ruled.
Case Title: Mr. Pathan Imrankhan Zafarullakhan & Anr. v. Microsoft Corporation
Case Number: O.M.P. (COMM) 223/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 610
The Delhi High Court has set aside an arbitral award that directed the transfer of the domain name "exceltotally.in" to Microsoft Corporation. The Court held that confusing similarity with Microsoft's "EXCEL" trademark, by itself, was not enough to establish bad faith under the .IN Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (INDRP).
Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar observed that the arbitrator had not independently examined whether the registrants intentionally sought to deceive users, exploit Microsoft's goodwill, derive an unfair commercial benefit, or otherwise acted in bad faith before ordering transfer of the domain name.
“Mere incorporation of a prior trademark within a domain name, absent surrounding circumstances evidencing intentional deception, diversion, or dishonest commercial exploitation, would not by itself satisfy the threshold contemplated under Clause 4(c) of the INDRP.”
Delhi High Court Appoints Former SC Judge Arun Mishra Arbitrator In NHIDCL Contract Dispute
Case Title : National Highways Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited v Sadhguru Engineers and Allied Services Pvt. Ltd & Others
Case Number: FAO(OS) (COMM) 83/2026, CM APPL. 21826/2026, CM APPL. 21827/2026, CM APPL. 21828/2026, CM APPL. 21829/2026 & CM APPL. 28908/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 595
The Delhi High Court on May 19 dismissed an appeal filed by National Highways Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. (NHIDCL) against an order restraining the encashment of bank guarantees furnished by a contractor.
With the consent of both sides, the court also appointed former Supreme Court judge Justice Arun Mishra as the sole arbitrator to adjudicate disputes arising from a highway project in Assam.
A division bench of Justices Dinesh Mehta and Vinod Kumar upheld a February 24 order passed by a single judge in favour of Sadhguru Engineers and Allied Services Pvt. Ltd., which had been awarded the balance work for four-laning of National Highway-37 on the Jorhat-Jhanji stretch.
The bench observed:
“The opening part of the bank guarantees in question may give an impression that the same are unconditional but if we peruse the complete guarantees, it clearly suggests that such unconditional bank guarantees can be invoked only in existence of certain situations or contingencies. According to us, unless the pre-defined contingencies in the bank guarantees are in existence, the appellant cannot justifiably invoke the bank guarantees.”
Allahabad High Court
Arbitral Seat Cannot Be Shifted Merely Due To Convenience Venue: Allahabad High Court
Case Title: Bb Coachtech India Private Limited v. The Presiding Officer, Commercial Court and another
Case Number: MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 6463 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (ALL) 49
The Allahabad High Court on 27 May held that the jurisdictional seat of arbitration cannot be altered merely because arbitral proceedings were conducted at another venue for convenience, once the seat has been contractually designated.
Justice Piyush Agrawal allowed the petition by Bb Coachtech India Private Limited and set aside the order of the Commercial Court, Kanpur, remanding the matter for fresh consideration. He observed:
“the hearing of the arbitration may have been taken place at Prayagraj, a different venue & seat from Kanpur but at the best, it can be said to be convenient place for the parties. In other words, the Commercial Court ought to have appreciated that Kanpur Nagar was consciously designated as the seat of arbitration. Once such a designation was made, the legal consequence that inexorably follows is that courts at Kanpur alone would have jurisdiction over the arbitral proceeding. The mere fact that arbitral tribunal for reasons of convenience, conducted proceeding at Prayagraj, it does not and cannot, alter the jurisdictional seat of arbitration of Kanpur Nagar.”
Section 11 Arbitration Orders Not Reviewable, Article 215 Powers Limited: Allahabad High Court
Case Title :Trans Lighting Ltd. v Madhyanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam
Case Number: CIVIL MISC. ARBITRATION APPLICATION No. - 91 of 2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (ALL) 47
On 14 May, the Allahabad High Court held that it cannot review an order passed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, while exercising its statutory jurisdiction. However, as a Court of Record, it may invoke its inherent powers under Article 215 of the Constitution to correct the record or remedy a grave error that may otherwise result in a failure of justice.
A Bench of Justice Jaspreet Singh dismissed an application seeking recall of an earlier order constituting a three-member arbitral tribunal despite a contractual stipulation providing for a sole arbitrator, holding that the case did not meet the high threshold required for exercise of the Court's inherent powers.
“It may be correct to say that the High Court while exercising its powers under Section 11 of the Act of 1996 may not review its orders but the inherent powers invested in the High Court or the Supreme Court by virtue of being a Court of Record can be invoked to correct the record or undo a serious error which if remained unaddressed, may occasion failure of justice.”
Case Title: Indian Oil Corporation Limited v M/s Kumar Filing Station
Case Number : Appeal under Section 37 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 – 41 of 2023
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (ALL) 46
The Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court on 15 May held that an arbitral tribunal cannot restore a dealership agreement that either party can terminate by notice. Such a contract is determinable in nature and Section 14 of the Specific Relief Act bars its specific enforcement.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Jaspreet Singh allowed Indian Oil Corporation Limited's (IOCL) appeal, set aside the arbitral award directing restoration of the dealership, and quashed the Commercial Court's order that had upheld the award. The judges held:
“In view of the above fact situation, the award passed by the Arbitral Tribunal as upheld by the Commercial Court is ex-facie and patently illegal being against the provisions of the Specific Relief Act as well as the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.”
Himachal Pradesh High Court
Case Title : Mohan Singh (deceased) through LRs. v. NHAI & Another
Case Number : CMPMO No. 724 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(HP)24
On 3 June, the Himachal Pradesh High Court held that when a statute requires an authority or arbitrator to perform an act within a prescribed time, the obligation lies on that authority to comply with the statutory timeline and complete the task accordingly.
A Single Bench of Justice Romesh Verma, while hearing Mohan Singh (deceased) through legal representatives v. National Highways Authority of India and others, directed the Divisional Commissioner-cum-Arbitrator, Shimla, to conclude the arbitration proceedings and pass the award on or before 4 December 2026. He observed:
“This Court is of the view that when a statute envisages an authority, be it an Arbitrator, to do a particular act in a particular manner and in a prescribed time schedule, then the onus is upon the said authority/Arbitrator to perform the task entrusted to it within the time schedule prescribed in the statute.”
Bombay High Court
Bombay High Court Orders Disclosure Of Bhutan Contract In Xcalibur–Oil Field Exclusivity Dispute
Case Title: Oil Field Instrumentation India Pvt. Ltd. v. Xcalibur Multiphysics Group S.L. & Ors.
Case Number : Commercial Arbitration Petition (L) No. 16156 of 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 308
On 8 June, the Bombay High Court held that parties cannot shield alleged breaches of exclusivity obligations under a joint venture agreement from judicial scrutiny by withholding the very contract in question on the ground of confidentiality.
Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan allowed the appeal filed by Bengaluru-based Oil Field Instrumentation India Pvt. Ltd., set aside the arbitral tribunal's order under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and remanded the matter for fresh consideration while directing disclosure of the Government of Bhutan's airborne geophysical survey contract central to the dispute. He held:
“With the deepest respect to the Learned Arbitral Tribunal, for the reasons set out in this judgement, I have to disagree. Exclusivity obligations in joint venture agreements entail precious and vital commercial elements that sophisticated parties negotiate and contract with careful attention to detail. The need for strict construction of a non-compete obligation cannot justify withholding the material relevant to adjudicate whether such obligation has been breached.”
Bombay HC Grants Relief To Adtrack, Says Housing Federation Tried To 'Wriggle Out' Of Hoarding Deal
Case Title : Adtrack Media LLP v. Happy Valley Homes CHS Federation Ltd.
Case Number: Arbitration Petition (L.) No. 7690 of 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 313
The Bombay High Court on Monday held that a housing federation was seeking to "wriggle out of contractual obligations" after changing its mind about the location of a proposed digital advertisement hoarding and granted interim protection permitting the project to proceed pending arbitration.
Justice Sandeep V. Marne held that the federation had changed its mind about the site location of the hoarding and that the contractor would suffer irreparable loss if interim protection was denied.
“A strong prima-facie case is made out by the Petitioner for grant of interim measures before commencement of the arbitral proceedings. The Federation is seeking to wriggle out of contractual obligations because it has changed its mind about the site location of the hoarding. The Agreement has not been terminated by the Federation, who has in fact expressed willingness for installation of the hoarding structure at an alternative site. The Petitioner would suffer irreparable loss if interim measures are not granted since the acts of the Federation have made Petitioner spend considerable amount (Rs.25,00,000/- as claimed in the Petition),” the court held.
Bombay High Court Quashes Awards Against Guarantors Despite IBC Moratorium On Debt
Case Title: Ajeet Madhukar Mulay vs Abhyudaya Co-Operative Bank Limited & Ors
Case Number: COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 843 OF 2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 321
The Bombay High Court on Tuesday held that arbitral awards resulting in enforcement of a debt that has become temporarily unenforceable due to a statutory moratorium run contrary to the fundamental policy of Indian law.
The court consequently quashed two awards obtained by Abhyudaya Co-operative Bank against guarantors of insolvency resolution bound Nirmangold Alloys Pvt. Ltd. and Nirmangold Plasttech Pvt Ltd.
Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh held that the arbitral tribunal continued proceedings and passed awards despite a moratorium operating in respect of the debt. The court concluded that the awards could not be sustained.
Holding that the awards resulted in enforcement of a debt that was temporarily incapable of enforcement because of a statutory bar, the Court observed,
“The impugned Awards resulting in enforcement of debt, which by reason of the statutory interdict is incapable of being enforced albeit temporarily, runs contrary to the fundamental principles of Indian law which recognises enforcement of laws in respect of legally enforceable debts. The impugned Awards disregard the binding judicial pronouncements of this Court as well as the Hon'ble Apex Court, are violative of fundamental policy of Indian law and are liable to be set aside under Section 34(2)(b)(ii) of Arbitration Act.”
Case Title: Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited v. Sapura Fabrication SDN BHD (now known as VTEB Fabrication SDN BHD)
Case Number: Commercial Arbitration Petition No. 720 of 2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 326
The Bombay High Court has reiterated that an arbitral award arising from an international commercial arbitration seated in India cannot be set aside on the ground of patent illegality.
The court held that allegations that an arbitral tribunal ignored evidence or arrived at perverse findings fall within the ground of patent illegality, which is unavailable for challenging such an award. It dismissed Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd.'s challenge to an award in favor of Malaysia-based contractor Sapura Fabrication Sdn. Bhd. (now known as VTEB Fabrication SDN BHD).
Justice Sandeep V. Marne held that the arbitration qualified as an international commercial arbitration because Sapura is a company incorporated in Malaysia, even though the arbitration was seated in India. The Court held that ONGC's challenge was largely founded on allegations of perversity and non-consideration of evidence.
Observing that such objections fall within the grounds of patent illegality, Justice Marne held:
“The ground of perversity is repeatedly pleaded in the Petition and the elements of perversity in the findings recorded by the Arbitral Tribunal are repeatedly sought to be demonstrated on behalf of the Petitioner during the course of submissions. However, the vice of perversity is relatable to the ground of patent illegality under Section 34(2A) of the Arbitration Act, which ground is not available for challenging the Award made in an international commercial arbitration.”
Case Title: Shashisumeet Production Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. Kuresh R. Kushesh @ Dhiren (with connected matters)
Case Number: Notice of Motion No. 665 of 2019 in Commercial Suit No. 621 of 2017; Interim Application No. 625 of 2021 in Commercial Suit No. 21 of 2021
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 320
The Bombay High Court has held that a dispute does not become non-arbitrable merely because one side alleges fraud or claims that it has criminal or public overtones.
Referring a dispute between television production company Shashisumeet Production Pvt. Ltd. and investor Kuresh R. Kushesh to arbitration, the Court said such allegations, by themselves, do not take the matter outside the jurisdiction of an arbitral tribunal.
"Merely on the ground that there are “criminal overtones” or because a party claims that there are “public overtones”, the dispute would not become non-arbitrable. The Agreement having been signed by both, the Plaintiffs as well as the Defendant, and that instrument having an arbitration clause, allother contentions about the evidentiary value of facts in relation to the existence of the bargain in the Agreement squarely fall in the domain of the Arbitral Tribunal.," Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan held.
Case Title : Fimbank P.L.C. vs Mr. Rajeev Suresh Bhatia & Ors
Case Number: COMMERCIAL EXECUTION APPLICATION NO. 55 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 319
The Bombay High Court has rejected an objection by two guarantors of a USD 5 million factoring facility to the maintainability of execution proceedings initiated by Malta-based Fimbank P.L.C. to enforce a Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) Court judgment in India.
Justice Abhay Ahuja held that a penal notice issued by the DIFC Court and a subsequent certificate relating to satisfaction of the judgment fulfilled the requirement of a certificate regarding satisfaction or adjustment of the decree.
The objection was raised by Rajeev Suresh Bhatia and Suresh Tulsidas Bhatia, the Managing Director and Chairman respectively of Bhatia Traders Co. LLC.
The Court held that the DIFC Court's Penal Notice dated October 24, 2023 declaring the judgment “final and executory” and the certificate dated December 9, 2025 certifying it as “conclusive and executable” were sufficient to satisfy Section 44A(2) CPC.
"True that, under Article 7(2) of the Law of the Judicial Authority at Dubai International Financial Centre, Law No. 12 of 2004, the Courts are required to affix the executory formula on the Judgment/Decision, Order or ratified Arbitral Award however, in response to an Application under the provisions of Rule 45.20, a Penal Notice dated 24th October, 2023 certifying that the Judgment under execution is final and executory as required by the provisions of Part 45 of the DIFC Court Rules and the certificate dated 9th December, 2025 entitled “Certificate in relation to satisfaction of Judgment” certifies that the Judgment is “conclusive and executable”.”
Bombay High Court Upholds Award In Paharpur–Siemens Dispute, Reaffirms Limited Scope Of Section 34
Case Title: Paharpur Cooling Towers Ltd. v. Siemens Ltd.
Case Number: Commercial Arbitration Petition No. 996 of 2019
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 316
On 8 June, the Bombay High Court reiterated that under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, courts cannot reappreciate evidence or substitute a plausible view taken by an arbitral tribunal merely because another interpretation of the contract or evidence is possible.
Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan dismissed the petition filed by Paharpur Cooling Towers Ltd. and upheld the arbitral award in favour of Siemens Ltd. in its entirety. He held:
"In my opinion, this analysis is a reasonable and commercially commonsensical interpretation of a commercial contract. It would not be open for this Court to substitute one plausible view taken by the Learned Arbitral Tribunal with another plausible view that is canvassed as being more acceptable and more logical."
Case Title: Tata Capital Financial Services Ltd. v. Priyanka Communications (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Case Number: Interim Application No. 434 of 2025 in Commercial Summary Suit No. 87 of 2022
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 315
On 8 June, the Bombay High Court held that Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 must be construed liberally to facilitate arbitral reference and cannot be defeated by procedural technicalities such as insisting on a separate application for referral.
Justice Abhay Ahuja referred Tata Capital Financial Services Ltd.'s Rs.36.10 crore loan recovery dispute with Priyanka Communications (India) Pvt. Ltd. and its guarantors to arbitration under Clause 21 of the Working Capital Demand Loan Agreement dated 2 August 2018. He observed:
“It is indeed true that Section 8 of the Arbitration Act is mandatory but it also cannot be ignored that Section 5 of the said Act clearly brings out the object of the Act viz. that of encouraging resolution of disputes expeditiously and where there is an arbitration agreement, Section 8 has to be construed keeping the legislative intent in mind. In my view, the legislative intent requires a Court to interpret Section 8 widely and not in a restrictive fashion, as would be the case if it were to be held that a separate Interim Application ought to have been filed making the same plea as made before this Court by the learned Senior Counsel on 11th September 2025 and in the written submissions filed in this Court, as the same would take away or rather delay reference of disputes to be adjudicated by the agreed mode of arbitration."
Chhattisgarh High Court
Commercial Court Cannot Hear Challenge To Railways Land Acquisition Award: Chhattisgarh High Court
Case Title: Sagarmal Agarwal v Deputy Chief Engineer, South Eastern Central Railway Bilaspur
Case Number : ARBA No. 28 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (CHH) 14
On 14 May, the Chhattisgarh High Court held that disputes arising from land acquisition proceedings under the Railways Act do not fall within the definition of a “commercial dispute” under Section 2(1)(c) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, and therefore cannot be adjudicated by a Commercial Court.
A Division Bench of Justices Parth Prateem Sahu and Sachin Singh Rajput allowed an appeal filed by Sagarmal Agrawal, set aside an order of the Commercial Court, Bilaspur, holding that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain a challenge to an arbitral award arising out of land acquisition proceedings. The judges held:
“Since the 2nd District Judge (Commercial Court), District Judge Level District Bilaspur (C.G.) is having no jurisdiction to entertain the application under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 arising out of the land acquisition proceedings being not covered under commercial dispute as defined under Section 2 (c) of the Act of 2015, the Commercial Court erred in entertaining the proceeding filed by the appellant before it.”
BOCW Cess Dispute Not Arbitrable, Must Be Decided Under Statutory Mechanism: Chhattisgarh High Court
Case Title : S K Samanta Co. (P) Ltd. v. South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd.
Case Number : ARBR 47 and 48 of 2024 and ARBR 4 and 6 of 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (CHH) 15
The Chhattisgarh High Court on 13 May, refused to appoint an arbitrator in a dispute between SK Samanta and Co. (P) Ltd. and South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. (SECL), holding that issues relating to statutory cess under the Building and Other Construction Workers' Welfare Cess Act, 1996 (BOCW Cess Act) are non-arbitrable.
Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha held that the dispute arose from statutory levy and not a purely contractual arrangement, and therefore did not fall within the scope of arbitration under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. He held:
“The principal issue raised by the applicant is with regard to the applicability or otherwise of the BOCW Act and the consequential liability towards deduction of cess. Such determination necessarily involves examination of statutory provisions, the scope of exclusion contained in Section 2(1)(d) of the BOCW Act, and the authority of the State machinery under the enactment… In the considered opinion of this Court, the dispute in question falls within the domain of the statutory framework governing levy and collection of cess and cannot be said to be a pure contractual dispute amenable to arbitration.”
Madras High Court
Case Title: Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. SPML Infra Limited & Ors.
Case Numbers: O.S.A. No. 135 of 2020 & C.M.P. No. 6403 of 2020
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 141
The Madras High Court has held that a majority arbitral award does not become invalid merely because a dissenting arbitrator awarded lesser amounts.
The court dismissed a challenge by the Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board to an award in favour of SPML Infra Limited arising out of a Chennai sewerage pipeline project.
A division bench of Justices P. Velmurugan and K. Govindarajan Thilakavadi observed:
"The Tribunal consisted of three Arbitrators and the impugned Award is a majority Award. Section 29 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 expressly recognises decision-making by majority. Therefore, the mere fact that one Arbitrator rendered a minority opinion granting lesser amounts does not render the majority Award invalid."
Madras High Court Affirms Fresh Arbitration In ₹2.5 Cr. Isha Foundation-BSNL Call Billing Dispute
Case Title: The Administrator, Isha Foundation v BSNL
Case Number : OSA(CAD) No. 148 of 2022
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 142
The Madras High Court on 9 June dismissed Isha Foundation's appeal, upheld a Single Judge's order setting aside the arbitral award, and directed a fresh adjudication of its dispute with Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL).
A Division Bench of Justices P. Velmurugan and Govindarajan Thilakavadi held that an Arbitral Tribunal cannot reject Call Detail Records (CDRs) and decide a dispute involving abnormal call traffic without obtaining expert opinion where technical issues require investigation and analysis. The Bench held:
“... While so, the cause for abnormal call volume was necessarily to be investigated and analysed and it is not possible without an expert opinion. But, the Arbitral Tribunal proceeded to record its findings and held that it is too hard to suggest that all the disputed calls originated from ISHA's GSM PRI. The learned Arbitrator ought to have sought for expert opinion before arriving at such conclusion.”
Calcutta High Court
Case Title: M/S. MHPL INFRA JV AND ORS. VERSUS RITES LIMITED AND ANR.
Case Number: AP-COM 153 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 147
The Calcutta High Court on Friday appointed a sole arbitrator to adjudicate disputes between MHPL Infra JV and RITES Ltd arising from a railway infrastructure contract connected with the Buxar Thermal Power Project at Chausa, Bihar.
Justice Gaurang Kanth appointed Advocate Sabir Ahmed as the sole arbitrator. The Court held that a valid arbitration clause existed between the parties. It also found that the petition for appointment of an arbitrator had been filed within the prescribed limitation period.
"Applying the aforesaid settled legal position to the facts of the present case, this Court finds that both the conditions precedent for exercise of jurisdiction under Section 11 of the Act are satisfied. As regards the first condition, namely the existence of a valid arbitration agreement, it is anadmitted position between the parties that an arbitration clause exists in Clause 25 of the General Conditions of Contract as amended through Correction Slip No. 3 of the agreement dated August 26, 2021,” the court ruled.
Case Title : KOBELCO CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED VS LARA MINING AND ANR.
Case Number: AO-COM/18/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 149
The Calcutta High Court has left open the question of whether an arbitration agreement contained in two Master Facility Agreements was validly assigned to Kobelco Construction Equipment India Pvt. Ltd. through a settlement with SREI Equipment Finance Ltd.
The Court held that the issue should be decided by the appropriate forum and not in the present appeals.
A Division Bench of Justices Debangsu Basak and Md. Shabbar Rashidi ruled that findings made by a Single Judge on the non-existence of an arbitration agreement would not bind future proceedings.
“In such view, the issue as to whether or not, there exist a valid arbitration agreement between the parties is kept open to be decided by the appropriate forum. The observations and the findings returned by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment and order will not prejudice any of the parties in the subsequent proceedings. All points raised by the parties in this regard are kept open to be decided by the appropriate forum.”, the court ruled.
Kerala High Court
Case Title : Ambica Praveesh v. BMH Care Hospital Ltd
Case Number : AR No. 12 of 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(KER) 102
The Kerala High Court on Friday observed that a presiding arbitrator has no noteworthy superior role over the other members of an arbitral tribunal except in matters of procedure where authorised by the parties or the tribunal.
Justice S. Manu observed, “It is clear from the arbitration clause that the third arbitrator nominated by the two arbitrators chosen by the parties shall preside the tribunal. The learned counsel for the petitioner is correct in contending that the presiding arbitrator has no noteworthy superior role compared to the other arbitrators except in the matter of deciding the questions of procedure, provided he is authorized by the parties or all the members of the tribunal in that regard.”