LiveLawBiz Arbitration Weekly Digest: March 15 - March 21, 2026
Shivani PS
22 March 2026 10:00 AM IST
NOMINAL INDEX
Ujaas Energy LTD. v. West Bengal Power Development Corporation LTD., 2026 LLBiz SC 122
State of Goa, Rep. By Executive Engineer, Public Works Department v. M/s. U. P. State Bridge Corporation Ltd., 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 141
NHAI PIU Aurangabad v. Kerman Sam Amroliwala & Anr.; Kerman Sam Amroliwala v. Competent Authority (Land Acquisition) & Anr., 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 143
National Highway Authority of India v. Suresh Pandharinath Matre & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 151
M/s. Gagan Ace Developers and Anr. v. M/s. Choice and Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 153
Jupicos Entertainment Private Limited v. Probability Sports (India) Private Limited & Anr., 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 155
JSW Ispat Steel Limited (Now Known As JSW Steel Limited) v. M/S Gas Authority Of India Limited, 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 260
Supermint Exports Pvt Ltd v. New India Assurance Company Ltd & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 261
Jiostar India Pvt. Ltd. v. Ms Absolute Legends Sports Private Limited & Anr., 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 286
Moonwalk Infra Projects Private Limited v. Onstruq Interlayer Private Limited, 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 275
Air India Limited v. All India Aircraft Engineers Association & Anr.; National Aviation Company of India Limited v. Indian Aircraft Technicians Association & Anr., 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 289
Proto Developers and Technologies Ltd v. Antriksh Realtech Pvt. Ltd & Anr., 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 277
Jiostar India Pvt. Ltd. v. Absolute Legends Sports Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 276
RPG Cables Limited v. BSNL, 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 280
Himachal Pradesh Power Corporation Ltd. v. Arvind Kumar Bansal, 2026 LLBiz HC (HP) 8
Indian Institute of Technology Mandi (Kamand) v. Central Public Works Department (CPWD) & Anr., 2026 LLBiz HC (HP) 9
X-Press Container Lines (UK) Ltd v. Board of Trustees of Port of Chennai, 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 77
O. Muthu v. P. Ashok & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 80
M/s Sree Agencies v. The Chief Law Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 81
Southern Railway v. Mrs. G. Bharathi, 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 83
State of Meghalaya v. Mayven T. Marbaniang & Anr., 2026 LLBiz HC (MEG) 2
Delhivery Limited v. Smartpaddle Technology Private Limited, 2026 LLBiz HC (PNH) 15
Project Director v. MT Ahammed Ali and Anr., 2026 LLBiz HC (KER) 55
Darshana Bhupendra Parekh v. TJSB Sahakari Bank Ltd., 2026 LLBiz HC (GUJ) 26
Mintech Global Pvt Ltd v. Ultratech Cement Pvt Ltd, 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 73
Shri Pramhans Enterprises v. M/s Varanasi Aurangabad NH-2 Tollway Private Limited, 2026 LLBiz HC (ALL) 24
Supreme Court
Supreme Court Allows Set-Off Defence Against Ujaas Energy Though Counterclaim Extinguished Under IBC
Case Title : Ujaas Energy LTD. v. West Bengal Power Development Corporation LTD.
Case Number : SLP (C) 29651 OF 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 122
The Supreme Court on Friday allowed West Bengal Power Development Corporation Ltd. to raise a plea of set-off as a defence in arbitration proceedings against Ujaas Energy Ltd., even though its counterclaim stood extinguished after approval of the resolution plan under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.
A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih while granting the relief observed:
“Upon a cumulative consideration of all relevant factors, we hold that the respondent, although not entitled to independently pursue its claim by way of counterclaim post approval of the resolution plan, ought to be permitted to raise the plea of set-off at least by way of defence. It is ordered accordingly.”
Bombay High Court
Case Title : State of Goa, Rep. By Executive Engineer, Public Works Department Versus M/s. U. P. State Bridge Corporation Ltd.
Case Number : APPEAL UNDER ARBITRATION ACT NO. 6 OF 2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 141
The Goa Bench of the Bombay High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by the State of Goa challenging an arbitral award passed in favor of U.P. State Bridge Corporation Ltd., holding that an arbitral award could not be set aside merely on the ground that one of the arbitrators nominated by the contractor had served as the Managing Director and consultant of the corporation. Justice Suman Shyam further observed that in the absence of material demonstrating actual bias or likelihood of bias, an arbitral award cannot be set aside.
"Therefore, in the absence of any material brought on record to demonstrate bias-ness, the mere fact that a former employee of the Corporation has been nominated as an Arbitrator, by itself, would not be enough to raise a justifiable doubt as regards his neutrality so as to vitiate the Award", it held.
Case Title : NHAI PIU Aurangabad v. Kerman Sam Amroliwala & Anr.; and Kerman Sam Amroliwala v. Competent Authority (Land Acquisition) & Anr.
Case Number : Arbitration Appeal No. 14 of 2016 and Arbitration Appeal No. 4 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 143
The Bombay High Court has dismissed the National Highways Authority of India's (NHAI) appeal, finding no patent illegality in the arbitral award enhancing compensation to a petrol pump owner after partial acquisition of land for highway expansion resulted in loss of business access. Justice Arun R. Pednekar upheld an arbitral award revising land compensation from Rs 595 to Rs 1,190 per square metre and granting compensation for loss of income, easementary rights, and business impact, while remanding the matter only for recalculation of statutory benefits in accordance with law.
“The competent authority as well as arbitrator has fixed the loss of income of 10% which is reasonable and based on the material produced on record and that this Court in exercise of powers under section 37 cannot interfere with the same as it cannot be said that it is against the public policy of India nor it can be said that there is patent illegality", it observed.
Case Title : National Highway Authority of India v. Suresh Pandharinath Matre & Ors. (and connected matters)
Case Number : Arbitration Appeal Nos. 10 to 32 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 151
The Bombay High Court at Aurangabad has recently held that the time limit for making an arbitral award under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, does not apply to arbitrations conducted under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956, as the Arbitration Act applies only to the limited extent provided under Section 3G(6) and only where it is not inconsistent with the special statutory scheme.
“Both the National Highways Act and the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 are Central enactments. Nevertheless, the application of the Arbitration Act, 1996 is by way of reference and only to the extent provided under Section 3G(6).", it said. "The application of Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to arbitrations conducted under the National Highways Act, 1956 would render the statutory scheme of appointment of arbitrators and conduct of proceedings of the arbitrator under the National Highways Act unworkable," it added.
Bombay High Court Directs Gagan Ace Developers To Deposit Rs. 7.81 Crore Arbitral Award For Stay
Case Title : M/s. Gagan Ace Developers and Anr. v. M/s. Choice and Ors.
Case Number : Writ Petition No. 1298 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 153
The Bombay High Court on 18 March upheld a District Judge's order under Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, directing Gagan Ace Developers to deposit the entire arbitral award amount of Rs. 7.81 crore along with interest as a condition for stay.
A Single Bench comprising Justice N.J. Jamadar held that the developers failed to make out any exceptional circumstances warranting an unconditional stay of the award in their dispute with Choice, a partnership firm primarily involved in real estate development and construction.
“The conspectus of aforesaid consideration is that the Petitioners cannot be said to have succeeded in making out an exceptional case. Nor could it be demonstrated that the Petitioners would suffer a substantial loss if the execution of the award is not stayed.
The fact that the Petitioners have suffered an arbitral award, which directs payment, by itself, cannot be construed as a substantial loss", it held.
Case Title : Jupicos Entertainment Private Limited v Probability Sports (India) Private Limited & Anr.
Case Number : Commercial Arbitration Application (L) No. 18608 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 155
The Bombay High Court on Monday referred to arbitration a dispute over participation rights in the T20 Mumbai League between Jupicos Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. and league operator Probability Sports (India) Pvt. Ltd. The dispute relates to Jupicos' right to continue participating in the league through its team Shivaji Park Lions.
Holding that MCA had a decisive role in conducting the league and had participated in the performance and termination of the contract, the Single Bench of Justice Sandeep V. Marne ruled that MCA is a veritable party to the arbitration agreement and cannot be excluded from the arbitral proceedings.
The Court observed, “MCA is fully, completely and absolutely involved in conduct of the League. Without its approvals, it is not permissible for any team to participate in the League.
The PA cannot neither be performed nor can be terminated without the approval of MCA. If conduct of MCA relating to subject matter (League) is taken into consideration, there can be little doubt that MCA has directly dealt with the applicant, thereby exhibiting clear intention of being bound by PA read with Supplementary Agreement. In my view therefore, after applying the tests laid down by Constitution Bench in Cox and Kings Ltd (supra), there can be little doubt to the position that MCA is a veritable party to the arbitration agreement contained in the PA.”
Delhi High Court
Case Title : JSW Ispat Steel Limited (Now Known As JSW Steel Limited) Versus M/S Gas Authority Of India Limited
Case Number : FAO(OS)(COMM) 4/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 260
The Delhi High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by JSW Steel, formerly known as JSW Ispat Steel, and upheld the setting aside of an arbitral award passed in its favour, holding that the arbitral tribunal had rewritten the contract by applying the doctrine of business efficacy to convert fixed transportation charges into variable charges. A Division Bench of Justices C. Hari Shankar and Om Prakash Shukla observed,
"Upon careful examination of the arbitral award, it is evident that the reasoning adopted by the tribunal represents a misapplication of the business efficacy principle in a manner that no reasonable person could have adopted. It is undisputed that in the present matter, Clause 4.03 of the contract was amended in 1998, replacing the earlier variable monthly service charge with a fixed transportation cost of Rs. 38,67,600/-"
Case Title : Supermint Exports Pvt Ltd v New India Assurance Company Ltd & Ors
Case Number : FAO(OS)(COMM) 286/2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 261
The Delhi High Court on Monday observed that a discharge voucher accepting an insurance settlement cannot be invalidated merely because the insured signed it under financial pressure, unless the insurer contributed to the alleged coercion, duress, or undue influence. Refusing to reopen a fire-insurance compensation dispute between Supermint Exports Pvt Ltd and New India Assurance Company Ltd, the Court upheld an arbitral award rejecting the company's attempt to claim additional compensation after it had accepted Rs 12.18 crore as “full and final settlement."
“It has to be borne in mind that the decision to sign an unconditional no claim discharge voucher is ultimately of the signatory. The mere fact that the signatory may feel financial pressure, and therefore decide to sign the discharge voucher, would not ipso facto render the voucher unenforceable on the ground of fraud, coercion, undue influence, or even compulsion. Absent any contribution to the financial distress, even remote, by the opposite party, the compulsion and duress, if any, arises out of the claimant's own subjective decision, and the claimant cannot be permitted to take advantage thereof, to the prejudice of the opposite party", it held.
Delhi High Court Grants Interim Relief To Jiostar In Legends League Cricket Media Rights Dispute
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) 286
The Delhi High Court has granted interim relief restraining Absolute Legends Sports Private Limited and another from transferring, assigning, or creating any third-party rights in the media and commercial rights relating to the Legends League Cricket Master T20 tournament, in a dispute with Jiostar India Pvt. Ltd., pending arbitration proceedings
Referring to Jiostar India Pvt. Ltd.'s petition seeking restraint on third-party rights in the tournament's media and commercial rights, the bench of Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar held that:
“In view of the fact that the transfer of the rights as set out in prayer clause (c) would effectively result in a complete erosion of the subject matter of the dispute, this Court is of the prima facie view that it is necessary that the proposed transfer of the same by Respondent No. 1 to Respondent No. 2 be interdicted”. The court further directed that “the Respondent No. 1 is therefore interdicted from, in any manner, creating any third-party rights, or transferring, assigning, or otherwise dealing with the media and commercial rights relating to the Legends League Cricket Master T20 tournament”.
Delhi High Court Appoints Arbitrator Though Arbitration Clause in Offers Not Repeated in Work Orders
Case Title : Moonwalk Infra Projects Private Limited v. Onstruq Interlayer Private Limited
Case Number : ARB. P. 1139/2025 & ARB. P. 1335/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 275
The Delhi High Court has held that the arbitration clause contained in techno-commercial offers formed part of the contract between Moonwalk Infra Projects Private Limited and Onstruq Interlayer Private Limited, even though the subsequent work orders did not repeat the clause, since the work orders were issued with reference to and on the basis of those offers.
A Single Bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh observed that “the Work Orders do not stand in isolation but are intrinsically linked to and founded upon the petitioner's TCOs. The reference to the quotation is neither incidental nor merely descriptive; rather, it forms the very foundation upon which the Work Orders have been issued. In such circumstances, the technical specifications contained in the TCOs, including the arbitration clause, prima facie stand incorporated into the Work Orders through reference.”
Case Title : Air India Limited v. All India Aircraft Engineers Association & Anr.; National Aviation Company of India Limited v. Indian Aircraft Technicians Association & Anr
Case Number : FAO(OS) 125/2023 & FAO(OS) 126/2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 289
The Delhi High Court dismissed Air India Limited's appeals and upheld arbitral awards directing the airline and its predecessor entities to pay wage arrears of Rs. 57.92 crore to the All India Aircraft Engineers Association (AIAEA) and Rs. 7.81 lakh to the Indian Aircraft Technicians Association (IATA). A Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetrapal and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar held that Presidential Directives (PDs) issued on wage revision and arrears for engineers and technicians, are binding administrative instructions but do not have the character of statutory law, and that an arbitral tribunal does not exceed its mandate by examining such directives when quantifying admitted dues.
“This Court is of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge has rightly observed that while PDs are binding administrative instructions, they do not partake the character of statutory law", it held.
Case Title : Proto Developers and Technologies Ltd v. Antriksh Realtech Pvt. Ltd & Anr.
Case Number : FAO(OS) (COMM) 189/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 277
The Delhi High Court has upheld an arbitral award directing Proto Developers and Technologies Ltd. to pay over Rs 12 crore to Antriksh Realtech Pvt. Ltd., holding that where a party fails to specifically deny a claim and does not cross-examine the opposing witness on a crucial issue, the arbitral tribunal is entitled to treat the evidence as unrebutted and the claim as established.
A Division Bench comprising Justices Anil Kshetrapal and Amit Mahajan observed, “A party that declines to cross-examine a witness on a crucial aspect cannot subsequently contend that the said statement of the witness ought not to be relied upon. In the present case, the absence of a specific denial in the pleadings to the counterclaim and the failure to cross-examine the witness of the Respondent No.1, RW-2, on the issue of financial assistance of Rs. 9 crores entitled the Tribunal to treat that part of the evidence as unrebutted and to draw the corresponding evidentiary inference.".
Case Title : Jiostar India Pvt. Ltd. v. Absolute Legends Sports Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
Case Number : O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 88/2026 (along with I.A. 6052/2026 & I.A. 6053/2026)
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 276
The Delhi High Court refrained from granting interim relief to Jiostar India Pvt. Ltd. in its dispute with Absolute Legends Sports Pvt. Ltd., the company that runs the Legends League Cricket tournament, over media and commercial rights linked to the league. A single-judge bench of Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar instead asked the parties to attempt a settlement through mediation after both the parties agreed to the same.
"Acceding to the same, the matter is referred to Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre (“Mediation Centre”) and the parties are directed to appear through their respective counsel before the Mediation Centre on 13.03.2026."
Case Title : RPG Cables Limited v BSNL
Case Number : O.M.P. (COMM) 76/2017
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 280
The Delhi High Court refused to interfere with an arbitral award allowing counterclaims to BSNL amounting to Rs. 12.63 crores in a dispute arising out of supply of optical fibre cables, holding that the supplier remained bound by its assurance regarding the life of the cables A single bench of Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar observed that when the supplier had assured that the life of the cables supplied by it was 32.8 years, which was beyond the tender requirement of 20 years then it was bound by the assurance.
The court held that the arbitrator was correct in holding that “The mere expiry of the warranty period could not absolve the Petitioner of its responsibility in respect of the defective cables, particularly when the failure occurred much prior to the assured life period.”
Himachal Pradesh High Court
Deposit Of Arbitral Award Amount In Court Stops Post-Award Interest: Himachal Pradesh High Court
Case Title : Himachal Pradesh Power Corporation Ltd. v. Arvind Kumar Bansal
Case Number : CMPMO No. 262 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (HP) 8
The Himachal Pradesh High Court on 5 March held that deposit of the entire arbitral award amount in the court registry amounts to payment to the decree-holder, and liability to pay post-award interest ceases from the date of deposit.
A Bench of Justice Romesh Verma set aside an execution order against the Himachal Pradesh Power Corporation Ltd. (HPPCL) in its dispute with Arvind Kumar Bansal. He held:
“the deposit of award amount in the Court amounts to payment to the credit of the decree holder. Therefore, once the entire awarded amount along with interest was deposited before this Court on 10.01.2019, therefore, liability of past award interest from 10.01.2019 ceased. The executing Court has erred by holding that no notice was given to the Decree Holder as per mandate of Order 21 Sub Rule (2) of the CPC.”
Himachal Pradesh High Court Stays Further Arbitration Over Construction Project At IIT Mandi
Case Title : Indian Institute of Technology Mandi (Kamand) v. Central Public Works Department (CPWD) & Anr.
Case Number : LPA No. 121 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (HP) 9
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that further proceedings in an ongoing arbitration concerning a construction project involving the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Mandi and the Central Public Works Department (CPWD) shall remain stayed while it examines IIT Mandi's plea to be impleaded in the dispute arising from an arbitral award of Rs 3,79,52,929.
The matter was heard on March 16, 2026, by a Division Bench of Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Justice Bipin C. Negi.
Taking note of the submissions, the High Court issued notice to the Central Public Works Department, whose counsel accepted notice, and directed issuance of notice to the other respondent.
In the meantime, the Court directed that further proceedings before the learned Arbitrator shall remain stayed.
The matter has been listed for further hearing on May 4, 2026.
Madras High Court
Case Title : X-Press Container Lines (UK) Ltd vs Board of Trustees of Port of Chennai
Case Number : OSA (CAD) 39 OF 2021
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 77
The Madras High Court recently restored an arbitral award directing the Board of Trustees of the Port of Chennai to refund Rs.1,21,91,869 to X-Press Container Lines (UK) Ltd. in a dispute arising out of a berth reservation agreement and recovery of berth hire charges and penal levy, holding that the claim was within limitation in view of repeated acknowledgments of liability by the Port authorities.
A Division Bench comprising Justices C.V. Karthikeyan and K. Kumaresh Babu allowed an appeal filed by X-Press Container Lines challenging an order dated September 17, 2020 that had set aside the arbitral award dated January 17, 2009. “In view of all these reasons, we set aside the order of the learned Single Judge and restore the award of the Arbitral Tribunal on the same terms granted by the Tribunal. The judgment of the learned Single Judge in O.P.No.511 of 2009 dated 17.09.2020 is set aside.”, the bench observed.
Case Title : O. Muthu v. P. Ashok & Ors.
Case Number : OSA Nos. 311 & 312 of 2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 80
Calling a Rs 24-crore arbitral award a “fraud” and “not worth the paper it had been written in”, the Madras High Court has upheld a 2019 order setting aside the award in a land dispute, holding that the Memorandum of Understanding on which the claim was based was an unlawful agreement opposed to public policy.
Holding that the Memorandum of Understanding was unlawful as it contemplated securing favourable government and court orders through a third party without the property owners being parties to the agreement, the bench observed, “The Memorandum of Understanding which provided for obtaining favourable orders from the Government and engaging counsels to get favourable orders from the Court without the owners of the property being party to the said agreement is wholly an unlawful agreement. It was an exercise opposed to public policy, covenant in the said agreement is void ab initio".
Case Title : M/s Sree Agencies v. The Chief Law Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. & Ors.
Case Number : O.P. No. 482 of 2017
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 81
The Madras High Court has reiterated that courts can examine the validity of an arbitrator's appointment even if the issue was not specifically pleaded in a challenge under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, where the defect goes to the root of the arbitral tribunal's jurisdiction.
Setting aside a 2016 arbitral award, the Single Bench of Justice N. Anand Venkatesh observed that “The Apex Court has held in more than one judgment that where the question raised goes to the root of the matter touching upon the very jurisdiction of the arbitral Tribunal and the same can be ascertained on the face of the award passed by the Tribunal, the Court can always go into the issue of jurisdiction even if no specific ground has been raised in the petition filed under Section 34 of the Act.”
Arbitral Tribunal Cannot Direct Renewal Of Determinable Contract: Madras High Court
Case Title : Southern Railway vs. Mrs.G. Bharathi
Case Number : O.SA.No.49 of 2021
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 83
The Madras High Court has set aside an arbitral award and a subsequent order of a single judge, ruling that an arbitral tribunal cannot direct continuation or renewal of a determinable contract, as such relief is barred under Section 14(d) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. A Division Bench of Justice P. Velmurugan and Justice K. Govindarajan Thilakavadi held that once a contract is determinable in nature, an arbitral tribunal cannot compel its continuation or renewal.
“Section 14(d) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (formerly Section 14(1)(c) prior to the 2018 amendment) clearly provides that contracts which are in their nature determinable cannot be specifically enforced. Once it is held that the contract between the parties is determinable in nature, the arbitral tribunal could not have granted a direction compelling renewal of the licence,” the Court observed.
Meghalaya High Court
Case Title : State of Meghalaya v. Mayven T. Marbaniang & Anr
Case Number : Cont.Cas (C) No. 4 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (MEG) 2
The Meghalaya High Court has held a contempt petition arising from alleged disobedience of arbitral tribunal directions to be maintainable, rejecting an objection that no proper reference had been made by the tribunal and holding that the process of reference stood completed in the facts of the case.
The Division Bench of Justice W. Diengdoh and Justice B. Bhattacharjee held that the tribunal's order directing that the matter be placed before the Chief Justice, followed by orders placing the case before the present bench, was sufficient to treat the reference as completed and that the petition could also be maintained at the instance of the aggrieved party under Rule 9 of the Contempt of Courts (High Court of Meghalaya) Rules, 2013.
Punjab and Haryana High Court
Digitally Executed Agreements Valid If Parties Acted Upon Them: Punjab & Haryana High Court
Case Title : Delhivery Limited v. Smartpaddle Technology Private Limited
Case Number : ARB-364-2025 (O&M)
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (PNH) 15
The Punjab and Haryana High Court on 9 March, held that digitally executed agreements are valid even in the absence of physical signatures where the parties have acted upon them and do not dispute their existence. A Single Bench of Justice Jasgurpreet Singh Puri appointed Justice B.S. Walia, former Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, as the sole arbitrator to adjudicate disputes between Delhivery Limited and Smartpaddle Technology Private Limited.
The Bench observed: “It is not necessary that the agreement has to be physically signed and the same can always be signed digitally by both the parties and in the present case, the agreement was rather given effect to and the conduct of the parties would show that the agreement was acted upon.”
Kerala High Court
Case Title : Project Director v. MT Ahammed Ali and Anr
Case Number : Arb.A No. 31 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (KER) 55
The Kerala High Court dismissed an appeal challenging an arbitral award granting compensation for an entire residential building affected by land acquisition for National Highway-66 development in Kasaragod, Kerala. A division bench of Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. dismissed the appeal filed by the Project Director, National Highways Authority of India, reiterating the limited scope of interference under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
“The appellate power exercised by the Court under Section 37 of the Act, 1996 is not that of an Appellate Authority and much importance has to be attached to the Award which, in the instant case, was passed by an authority who is conversant with the nature of the dispute required to be adjudicated under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956.” the Bench observed.
Gujarat High Court
Case Title : Darshana Bhupendra Parekh vs TJSB Sahakari Bank Ltd
Case Number : R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 479 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (GUJ) 26
The Gujarat High Court recently observed that a party challenging an arbitral award cannot seek to overcome limitation by claiming that it came to know of the award during execution proceedings, if its Section 34 application does not contain a clear and categorical plea that the signed copy of the award had never been delivered to it as required under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
A division bench of Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice D.N. Ray made the observation while dismissing an appeal filed under Section 37 of the Act against an order rejecting a challenge to an arbitral award as time-barred.
“In absence of any categorical statement made by the applicant about the non-delivery or non-receipt of the arbitral award, the contention based on the affixation of process in execution case is neither here nor there,” the court observed.
Calcutta High Court
Case Title : Mintech Global Pvt Ltd vs Ultratech Cement Pvt Ltd
Case Number : AO-COM/6/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 73
The Calcutta High Court on 16 March dismissed cross appeals filed by Mintech Global Pvt Ltd and UltraTech Cement Ltd, upholding a Single Judge's order that partly modified an arbitral award arising from a commercial contract related to cement manufacturing. A Division Bench of Justices Debangsu Basak and Md. Shabbar Rashidi held that the Single Judge's conclusions on the interest rate and the limited scope of jurisdiction under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, warranted no interference. The judges noted:
“Learned Single Judge has therefore rightly held that the Arbitral Tribunal acted contrary to the contract in reducing the rate of interest. We have not found that the exercise of jurisdiction by the learned Single Judge under Section 34 of the Act of 1996, stands vitiated.”
Allahabad High Court
Case Title : Shri Pramhans Enterprises v. M/s Varanasi Aurangabad NH-2 Tollway Private Limited
Case Number : Arbitration and Conciliation Application U/S 11(4) No. 129 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (ALL) 24
The Allahabad High Court has recently reiterated that while disputes relating to sovereign functions such as imposition or levy of tax are non-arbitrable, but disputes arising out of contractual obligations between parties, even if they involve issues of tax reimbursement or GST compliance, remain arbitrable. A bench of Justice Vikas Budhwar relying on rulings in Vidya Drolia vs. Durga Trading Corporation and other precedents, observed,
"From the law laid down in the aforesaid decisions,It is evident that disputes relating to sovereign functions such as imposition or levy of tax are non-arbitrable. However, disputes arising out of contractual obligations between parties, even if they involve issues of tax reimbursement or compliance, do not fall within the category of non-arbitrable disputes".