LiveLawBiz Arbitration Cases Weekly Digest: March 29- April 4, 2026

Supreme Court

No Fresh Arbitration Maintainable On Same Cause Without Liberty To Refile: Supreme Court

Case Title : Rajiv Gaddh vs Subodh Prakash

Case Number : SLP (C) No. 4430 OF 2025

CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 137

The Supreme Court on Wednesday held that a litigant cannot initiate fresh arbitration proceedings on the same cause of action after abandoning earlier proceedings, emphasising that such conduct amounts to abuse of process and is barred by principles underlying Order 23 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. A bench of Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Alok Aradhe was hearing an appeal against the Punjab and Haryana High Court order dated November 8, 2024, which had allowed a fresh application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act for appointment of an arbitrator.

While setting aside the high court's order, the top court observed: “A litigant cannot be permitted to abuse the process of Court to file a fresh proceeding again on the same cause of action. The bar contained in Order 23 Rule 1 of the Code which applies to proceeding under Section 11 of the Act is founded on Public Policy.”

Supreme Court Refuses To Interfere With NTPC Plea Against MSME Award Over Failure To Make 75% Pre-Deposit

Case Title : NTPC Ltd Vs Micro And Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, Bhopal & Ors.

Case Number : Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 2461/2026

CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 138

The Supreme Court on Wednesday dismissed a special leave petition filed by NTPC Ltd, a government-owned power generation company, refusing to interfere with a Madhya Pradesh High Court order that declined to entertain its challenge to an MSME Facilitation Council award for non-compliance with the statutory pre-deposit requirement. A bench of Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Atul S. Chandurkar said, “After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, we see no reason and ground to interfere with the impugned judgment passed by the High Court. Accordingly, the special leave petition is dismissed.”

The High Court, by its order dated December 5, 2025, had upheld the decision of the Commercial Court, Bhopal, which dismissed NTPC's application under Section 19 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 for failure to deposit 75% of the awarded amount, a mandatory pre-condition for maintaining such a challenge.

High Courts

Delhi High Court

Delhi High Court Sets Aside Rs 13.31 Crore Arbitral Award In Favour Of Jindal India Against Oriental Insurance

Case Title : The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Jindal India Limited

Case Number : O.M.P. (COMM) 182/2023

CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 327

A Rs. 13.31 crore arbitral award in favour of Jindal India Limited has been set aside by the Delhi High Court in a dispute over insurance claims arising from a factory fire, with the court finding that the award went beyond the terms of the contract. Justice Avneesh Jhingan underlined that an arbitrator's authority flows from the agreement between the parties. “The arbitrator cannot go beyond the terms of the contract,” the court said, adding that the methodology adopted to assess loss must conform to the policy.

Delhi High Court Sets Aside Rs 11.93 Crore Damages In Favour Of ONGC For Lack Of Proof Of Loss

Case Title : UEM India Pvt. Ltd. v. ONGC Limited

Case Number : O.M.P. (COMM) 393/2018

CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 310

The Delhi High Court has struck down an award of Rs 11.93 crore in additional damages granted to ONGC Limited against UEM India Pvt. Ltd., finding that the arbitral tribunal fixed the amount without any proof of actual loss, without even recording that such loss was incapable of proof, and without explaining how the figure was arrived at. A bench of Justice Avneesh Jhingan held that the award violated the requirement of a reasoned decision under Section 31(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The court observed:

“In absence of a proof of actual damages and without recording a finding that actual damages could not be proved the tribunal proceeded to conclude that 10% of the contract value shall be a reasonable damages to be awarded over and above the LD. The basis for quantification is missing and the awarding of damages is vitiated for violating Section 31(3) of the Act whereby a reasoned award is to be passed.”.

Mere Filing Of One Plea Before A Court Doesn't Confer Jurisdiction For Subsequent Arbitration Pleas: Delhi HC

Case Title : SP Singla Constructions Pvt Ltd v State of Jharkhand & Anr.

Case Number : O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 384/2024

CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 330

The Delhi High Court has held that merely filing a petition before a particular court cannot fix jurisdiction under Section 42 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, especially where the petition is withdrawn without any adjudication. Section 42, which centralises all subsequent applications in the first court approached, cannot be invoked in such circumstances as the jurisdiction contemplated must be “real, effective, and legally sustainable”, the court said.

A Single Bench of Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar observed that " Section 42 cannot be construed in a manner that forecloses a party‟s right to raise a fundamental jurisdictional objection, particularly when such objection could never be raised or was never adjudicated upon at any prior stage. Indeed, if this court otherwise lacks jurisdiction in accordance with the settled principles of law, the mere prior filing of a petition under Section 9 or any other petition of application under the A&C Act, without any determination thereon, cannot operate as a binding factor so as to confer jurisdiction by default or estoppel"

Delhi High Court Upholds Arbitral Order Allowing Affle To Inspect Talent Unlimited's Records As Shareholder

Case Title : Talent Unlimited Online Services Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Affle India Ltd.

Case Number : ARB. A. (COMM) 22/2024 & OMP (ENF.) (COMM) 66/2024

CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 338

The Delhi High Court on Saturday upheld a SIAC Arbitral Tribunal's order granting interim relief to Affle India Limited, a listed mobile advertising technology company. The order permits inspection of the records and premises of Talent Unlimited Online Services Private Limited, developer of the “Bobble Keyboard” app. The court held that the arbitrator's interpretation of Affle's inspection rights as a shareholder of Talent Unlimited Online Services Private Limited under Clause 3.4 of the Shareholders' Agreement was correct and warranted no interference.

The Bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh, referring to Clause 3.4 of the Shareholders' Agreement, held, “perusal of the clause, reproduced above, clearly shows that the respondent has a right to inspect, which has been so exercised by the respondent and recognised by the Sole Arbitrator. Hence, I am of the view that the findings of the Sole Arbitrator are based on correct interpretation of Clause No. 3.4 of the SHA.”

Bombay High Court

Bombay High Court Sets Aside Awards Against Stock Broker For Ignoring Claimant's Statements

Case Title : Kantilal Chhaganlal Securities Pvt. Ltd. Versus Viveka Kumari & Anr

Case Number : Arbitration No. 1057 OF 2014

CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 182

The Bombay High Court recently set aside concurrent arbitral awards, holding that ignoring vital evidence, including the claimant's own statements, rendered the findings perverse. Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan heard a petition by Kantilal Chhaganlal Securities Pvt Ltd. The firm had challenged an arbitral award dated October 23, 2013 and an appellate award dated April 8, 2014 in favour of its client.

Setting aside the awards, the court said: “That vital evidence that cuts to the root of the matter is ignored, would lead to patent illegality of an extent that warrants interference. Merely because there are two concurrent findings in the two-tier arbitration that has been conducted, the check and balance under the Section 34 jurisdiction would be no less a check and balance. With the aforesaid observations, the Section 34 Petition is allowed, and the Arbitral Award and the First Award are quashed and set aside."

Bombay High Court Refuses to Interfere With Enhanced Compensation In NH-6 Land Acquisition Arbitration Case

Case Title : National Highways Authority of India vs Bhaskar Ninu Zambare & Ors

Case Number : ARBITRATION APPEAL NO. 103 OF 2025

CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 174

The Bombay High Court has refused to interfere with enhanced compensation awarded to landowners for acquisition of land for widening National Highway-6 from Jalgaon to the Gujarat boundary, holding that no case was made out for interference under the limited scope of appellate review.

“Considering the totality of the circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that no case is made out for interference with the award passed by the Arbitrator. The Arbitrator has assessed the value of the land considering the relevant material before him and has granted compensation for severance, loss of business, and loss of easementary rights. The same is based on the material on record and is in accordance with the law as noted in the above-referred judgments of this Court. Consequently, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment under Section 34 and the award, passed by the Arbitrator"

'No Second Bite At The Cherry': Bombay High Court Refuses Plea For Fresh Arbitrator By Negligent Party

Case Title : Nalin Vallabhbhai Patel & Anr. v. Atharva Realtors & Ors.

Case Number : Commercial Arbitration Application No. 430 of 2025

CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 175

The Bombay High Court has observed that while the expiry of an arbitrator's mandate under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 does not automatically terminate arbitral proceedings, a defaulting party cannot be allowed “another bite at the cherry” by seeking appointment of a fresh arbitrator after a court has already refused to extend the mandate due to that party's own negligence.

A single-judge bench of Justice Sandeep V. Marne, while dismissing an application filed by Nalin Vallabhbhai Patel and another against Atharva Realtors and others, held that in the facts of the case, the doors of arbitration stood closed once the Section 29A court had recorded that the claimants had abandoned the proceedings.

The bench observed that “appointment of arbitrator after refusal by Court to extend mandate of previous arbitrator under Section 29A would depend on facts of each case and the question as to 'who is at fault' would provide the key for solving the problem. If parties are responsible for delay and Court has refused to extend the mandate on account of conduct of parties, the arbitral proceedings will have to be treated as having been terminated. This is necessary because if the arbitral proceedings are not treated to have been terminated, parties at fault would get another bite at the cherry by seeking appointment of another arbitrator.”

Contractual Bar On Damages Does Not Exclude Right To Restoration Of Benefits: Bombay High Court Modifies Arbitral Award

Case Title : SSD Escatics Private Limited v. Goregaon Pearl Cooperative Housing Society Limited

Case Number : Commercial Arbitration Petition No. 354 of 2024

CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 171

The Bombay High Court has held that a contractual clause barring damages or compensation in a redevelopment agreement is enforceable but does not restrict the statutory right of a developer to seek restoration of benefits under Section 64 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. Justice Sandeep V. Marne partly set aside an arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, holding that while the arbitrator was justified in denying damages in view of Clause 22 of the Development Agreement, the rejection of the developer's claim for restoration of benefits was erroneous.

The court upheld the award directing SSD Escatics Private Limited to pay Rs 7,08,53,695.03 to Goregaon Pearl Cooperative Housing Society Limited towards arrears of transit rent and amounts agreed under consent terms, but interfered with the award to the limited extent of permitting restoration of benefits.

Bombay High Court Upholds Foreign Award In TASL–Ion Exchange Dispute, Rejects Public Policy Challenge

Case Title : Trading and Agency Services Limited WLL (Qatar) v Ion Exchange (India) Limited

Case Number : Commercial Arbitration Petition No. 214 Of 2024 With Interim Application (L) No. 20707 Of 2024

CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 322

The Bombay High Court on 17 March held that the “public policy of India” ground under Section 48 of the Arbitration Act, 1996 (the Act), cannot be used to apply Indian legal principles to challenge enforcement of a foreign arbitral award arising from a foreign-law governed contract. Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan allowed a petition filed by Trading and Agency Services Limited (TASL), a Qatari company, to enforce a foreign arbitral award of USD 978,300 against Ion Exchange (India) Limited.

The Court observed: “While Indian law principles can be sought to be imported on what was a Qatari-law governed contract, it would not be possible to simply apply Indian law as if the parties' conscious choice of law is to be ignored, just when it comes to enforcement of the Subject Award.”

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Limitation To Challenge Arbitral Award Begins On Delivery Of Signed Award Copy To Party: Madhya Pradesh HC

Case Title : Late Shri Smt. Navlibai W/o Shri Bhagwanlajji Mehta (Deceased) Through Legal Representatives & Ors. v. Motilal Khatri

Case Number : Arbitration Appeal No. 22 of 2026

CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (MP) 15

The Madhya Pradesh High Court at Indore has held that the limitation period for challenging an arbitral award begins only from the date on which a signed copy of the award is delivered to the party, setting aside a Commercial Court order that had dismissed a challenge as time-barred. A division bench of Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla and Justice Alok Awasthi ruled that Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 must be read together with Section 31(5), which mandates delivery of a signed copy of the award to each party.

“As per the provisions of Section 31(5) of the Act, it is the duty of the Arbitrator to deliver a signed copy to each party. From the aforesaid order-sheet, it is axomatic that the presence of the present appellant/respondent was not recorded and the copy of the award was not delivered to them. The provisions of Section 34(3) of the Act has to be read along with Section 31(5) of the Act and, therefore, the limitation would count from the date when signed copy of the award is delivered to the appellant(s). The aforesaid aspect have not been considered while rejecting the application for condonation of delay,” the court observed.

Disputes During Subsisting Works Contract Can Be Referred To Arbitration Within 3 Years: Madhya Pradesh HC

Case Title : LCC Projects Pvt Ltd v. Madhya Pradesh Jal Nigam Maryadit & Ors.

Case Number : Arbitration Revision Nos. 68 of 2025 & 69 of 2025

CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (MP) 17

The Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur has recently held that contractors can approach the arbitration tribunal within three years if a dispute arises while a government works contract is still ongoing, even though the law also prescribes a one-year limitation after the final authority's decision. A Division Bench of Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Pradeep Mittal set aside an order of the M.P. Arbitration Tribunal, which had dismissed a plea filed by LCC Projects Pvt. Ltd. against Madhya Pradesh Jal Nigam Maryadit as time-barred.

Clarifying the position under the Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983, the court said held: “It is correct that under subsection (1) of section 7-B, for filing a reference before the Tribunal the period of limitation is one year from the date of communication of the decision by the final authority. Admittedly, the petitioner has filed a reference beyond the period of one year on 02.9.2024, as it should have been filed on or before 18.8.2024. But, section 7(2-A) is a non obstante clause, meaning thereby, despite the one year period of limitation prescribed under section 7-B(1) in a case where the contract is ongoing or pending, and any dispute arises, the contractor can approach the Tribunal by way of reference within a period of 03 years"

Apostilled Arbitral Awards From Hague Convention Signatory Countries Enforceable If Authenticity Undisputed: Madhya Pradesh HC

Case Title : PerkinElmer US LLC v. Ilishan Biotech Private Limited (F/K/A Biotech International)

Case Number : MCC No. 3164 of 2024

CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (MP) 18

The Madhya Pradesh High Court at Indore has held that apostilled arbitral award copies (documents certified as genuine in countries with which India has reciprocal recognition of such authentication) are valid for enforcement where their authenticity is undisputed, while declaring a Texas-seated foreign award of USD 623,169.37 in favour of PerkinElmer US LLC enforceable. Rejecting objections by Ilishan Biotech Private Limited on non-production of original documents, a single-judge bench of Justice Pawan Kumar Dwivedi said, “As India and the United State of America are signatories to the Hague Apostille Convention thus, there is reciprocity between the two countries regarding notarial acts of Notaries. This facts is clear from the memorandum of Ministry of External Affairs dated 18.11.2020 itself.”

It added, “Thus, as Section 14 only requires reciprocal arrangements and as in the present case, India and USA being signatories of the Hague Apostille Convention, in the considered view of this Court, the reciprocity as required under Section 14 of the Notaries Act, 1952 is very much there.”

MSME Council Justified In Proceeding To Arbitration Without Fresh Notice When Party Skips Conciliation: Madhya Pradesh HC

Case Title : Shri Chain Perfumery Works v. Union of India & Ors.

Case Number : Writ Appeal No. 1997 of 2024

CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (MP) 2

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that where a party, despite being granted an opportunity, fails to file a reply and declines to participate in conciliation proceedings, the MSME Facilitation Council is justified in proceeding to arbitration without issuing a separate notice. A Division Bench of Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Pradeep Mittal observed, “Once the petitioner had declared that he was interested in participating in the conciliation proceedings, the Facilitation Council had no option but to proceed to decide the dispute by way of arbitration, for which no separate notice was liable to be issued. The petitioner was required to file a reply to the statement of claim submitted by the respondent. Even otherwise, this Court had granted seven days' time to file a reply, failing which, the Facilitation Council shall proceed for arbitration and the said order was passed at the instance of the appellant/petitioner.”

Madras High Court

Madras High Court Upholds Arbitral Award Granting Damages To Power Purchaser After Supplier's First Breach

Case Title : OPG Power Generation Private Ltd. v. Shree Karthik Papers Ltd.

Case Number : OSA No. 301 of 2020

CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 314

The Madras High Court on 6 March, held that an arbitral award granting damages for non-supply of electricity cannot be interfered with when the supplier itself commits the initial breach of the power supply agreement by unilaterally revising the tariff and stopping supply without following the contractual procedure. A Division Bench of Justices C.V. Karthikeyan and K. Kumaresh Babu dismissed an appeal filed by OPG Power Generation Pvt Ltd (OPG) under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act and upheld the arbitral award as well as the order of the Single Judge confirming the award. The judges held:

“Both the arbitrator and the learned Single Judge had examined who was first in breach of the agreement and had come to an uniform conclusion that it was the appellant, who had initially raised the tariff and later exercising right under Clause 11.8 had stopped supply. The appellant claimed later that they had stopped supply only because the respondent failed to pay the bill within the time period stipulated. But again, even if the bill had not been paid within the time, the appellant could not and should not have stopped supply of power without following the guidelines under clause 11.4 of the agreement.”

Award Granting Statutorily Barred Relief Suffers From Patent Illegality: Madras High Court Case Title : Southern Railway v. Mrs. G. Bharathi

Case Number : O.S.A. No. 49 of 2021

CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 91

The Madras High Court on 18 March held that determining whether an arbitral award grants relief barred by law or beyond the contract is a question of legality, not of re-examining evidence. Courts can intervene under Section 34(2A) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 only if the award shows patent illegality. A Division Bench of Justice P. Velmurugan and Justice K. Govindarajan Thilakavadi allowed Southern Railway's appeal and set aside the arbitral award that directed continuation and renewal of a railway catering licence granted to Mrs. G. Bharathi.

It observed: “In the present case, the direction issued by the arbitral tribunal compelling continuation of the licence and granting renewal of a determinable contract is contrary to Section 14(d) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.”

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Delay In Filing Objections Excused Where Arbitral Tribunal Fails To Provide Signed Award: HP High Court

Case Title : Chief Engineer, HP PWD National Highway Division, Shimla v. M/s Ceigall India Limited

Case Number : CARAP(M) No. 15 of 2025

CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (HP) 11

The Himachal Pradesh High Court held on 19 March that a party cannot be held responsible for delay in filing objections where the arbitral tribunal fails to furnish a signed copy of its award, despite specific requests. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, while condoning a 16-day delay in filing objections in the dispute between the Chief Engineer, HP PWD National Highway Division, Shimla, and Ceigall India Limited, observed:

"This Court is of the considered view that the learned Arbitral Tribunal should have ensured that a signed copy of the Award was provided to the applicant, which it failed to do...in the peculiar facts of this case, it cannot be said that the filing of the objections by the applicant beyond three months is completely attributable to the negligence on the part of the applicant."

Telangana High Court

Education Not Commercial Activity: Telangana High Court In Arbitration Dispute Over SVIT, Bolton School

Case Title : Mahbub College (Multi-purpose Higher Secondary School) Society v. Venkat Narayana Educational Society & Ors.

Case Number : C.M.A. Nos. 181, 183, 202 & 252 of 2025; C.R.P. Nos. 3559 & 3560 of 2024

CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (TEL) 8

Education should not be treated as a mere commercial activity driven solely by management interests, the Telangana High Court has observed, emphasising that disputes over control of institutions must not be carried on at the cost of students, teachers, and academic functioning. The observation came while the Court was dealing with a dispute between Mahbub College Society and Venkat Narayana Educational Society (VNES) over the management of institutions including the Swami Vivekananda Institute of Technology (SVIT) and Bolton School.

A division bench of Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice Gadi Praveen Kumar observed, “The Constitution of India, through its fundamental rights and directive principles, guarantees access to health and education, recognizing them as essential pillars for human dignity, and in today's society their effective realization is vital for social progress, equality, and the overall development of the Nation. Therefore, education should not be treated as a mere commercial activity driven by management interests alone.”

Kerala High Court

Foreign Arbitral Award Unenforceable In India Without Valid Arbitration Agreement: Kerala High Court

Case Title : M/s Concilium Marine Group AB & Anr. v. Sharath Thazhathe Veedu

Case Number : E.P. (ICA) No. 1 of 2024

CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (KER) 61

The Kerala High Court on Tuesday held that a foreign arbitral award, even if confined to costs, cannot be enforced in India under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, if it is rendered in the absence of a valid arbitration agreement, holding that such disputes are not capable of settlement by arbitration under Indian law. Justice S. Manu dismissed an execution petition filed by Concilium Marine Group AB and Concejo AB, two Swedish entities, against an Indian resident, observing, “A valid arbitration agreement is a baseline for a lawful arbitral proceeding in India. Agreement-less arbitration is inconceivable in Indian law. S.48(2)(a) stipulates that enforcement of an arbitral award can be refused if the court finds that the subject matter of difference is not capable of settlement by arbitration under the law of India. As the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 does not envisage a lawful arbitration without an agreement as articulated under S.7, for want of a binding agreement, the differences between the petitioners and the respondent in this case were not capable of settlement by arbitration under the Indian law. Consequently, the award is hit by S.48(2)(a). For the same reason, in my view it attracts the disqualification under S.48(2)(b) too even though the expression 'public policy of India' is understood in a restricted sense.”

Jammu & Kashmir & Ladakh High Court

Limitation For Plea-Seeking Arbitrator Appointment Begins From Failure Of Opposite Party To Act On Invocation Notice: J&K&L High Court

Case Title : K.K. Enterprises vs UOI

Case Number : Arb P No. 98/2025

CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (JAM) 11

The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh recently held that an application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which allows a party to approach the court for appointment of an arbitrator when the other side fails or refuses to do so, must be filed within three years from the date of such failure or refusal. The court clarified that the cause of action arises upon such failure or neglect, and once limitation begins to run, it continues without interruption.

The bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar observed, "Thus, the breaking point, which gives rise to commencement of cause of action in favour of a party approaching the court under Section 11(6) of the Act, is the refusal/neglect on the part of the adverse party or the designated authority to respond to the letter invoking arbitration agreement. The cause of action would start running against the party approaching the court from that date and once it starts running, it would not stop running against the party approaching the court thereafter."