LiveLawBiz Arbitration Weekly Digest: October 19- October 24, 2026
Shivani PS
26 Oct 2026 11:27 AM IST
NOMINAL INDEX
Aakash Educational Services Limited v. Vaibhav Gupta, Sole Proprietor of M/s Shivrekkha Corporations, 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 1166
Som Shiva Impex Ltd. v. National Research Development Corporation & Anr., 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 1155
Department of Land Resources v. M/s Mukesh and Associates, 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 1148
Kirloskar Pneumatic Company Limited v. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited, 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 1147
AND Movie Products LLP v. Echelon Productions & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 578
Angelic Info Tech Private Limited v. Zanmai Labs Private Limited, 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 579
Maruthi Co-operative Housing Society Limited v. Tridhaatu Maruthi Developers LLP & Anr., 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 580
Siemens Financial Services Private Limited v. Nadeem Ahmad Khandey & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 583
Dr. Devidas R. Sheregar & Ors. v. Zeenal Constructions Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 588
Swan Corp Limited & Ors. v. Subramanya Constructions and Developments Co. Limited & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 593
Wellgroomed Venture v. Dr. Kamat's Hospital, 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 589
The PRG Shipping Private Limited v. Tamil Nadu Maritime Board & Anr., 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 327
Ashok Kumar v. Bhupendra Kumar Lunkad and Others, 2026 LLBiz HC(MP) 71
Delhi High Court
Delhi High Court Appoints Local Commissioner In Aakash's ₹2.13 Crore Student Fee Dispute
Case Title Aakash Educational Services Limited v. Vaibhav Gupta, Sole Proprietor of M/s Shivrekkha Corporations
Case Number O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 491/2026; I.A. 29211/2026
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 1166
The Delhi High Court on 16 October appointed a Local Commissioner to inspect and preserve financial and electronic records at Aakash Educational Services Limited's former franchise centre in Gangapur City, Rajasthan.
Justice Vinod Kumar allowed Aakash's application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, following allegations that franchisee Vaibhav Gupta had failed to remit over Rs. 2.13 crore in student fees and obstructed Aakash's audit. The Bench held:
“In view of the nature of the records sought to be preserved, their relevance to the disputes between the parties and the circumstances pleaded by the Petitioner concerning the attempted audit, this Court is of the view that appointment of a Local Commissioner for the limited purpose of inspection and preservation of the relevant records is warranted.”
Case Title Som Shiva Impex Ltd. v. National Research Development Corporation & Anr.
Case Number O.M.P. (COMM) 23/2023 & I.A. 1241/2023
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 1155
The Delhi High Court on 13 October set aside a Rs. 2.60 crore arbitral damages award against Som Shiva Impex Limited in favour of the National Research Development Corporation (NRDC), holding that damages for breach of contract cannot be awarded without assessing the actual loss suffered.
Justice Subramonium Prasad held that the arbitrator had rejected NRDC's royalty claim because the technology was never commercialised but had nevertheless calculated damages using the unpaid royalties without determining whether NRDC had suffered any loss. He said:
“In the present case, the Arbitrator has not given nominal damages. A perusal of the Award indicates that the learned Arbitrator has proceeded to award damages on failure of transfer of technology by the Petitioner to the Respondent by and after 10.06.2020, i.e. the date on which the Petitioner was under a contractual obligation to transfer the technology on failure to commercialise the product. On this limited aspect, there are no observations rendered by the learned Arbitrator as to whether any loss has been suffered by the Respondent herein."
Case Title Department of Land Resources v. M/s Mukesh and Associates
Case Number FAO(OS) (COMM) 175/2024 and FAO(OS) (COMM) 233/2024
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 1148
The Delhi High Court on 15 October held that government departments cannot justify delays in filing arbitration appeals merely by citing reduced office functioning during the 2024 Lok Sabha elections without explaining how the elections prevented timely filing.
A Division Bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Justice Amit Sharma refused to condone delays of 119 and 132 days in two appeals filed by the Department of Land Resources against Mukesh and Associates, which challenged orders dismissing the Department's challenges to an arbitral award of approximately Rs. 11.24 crore arising from a watershed management consultancy contract.
Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in State of Maharashtra v. Borse Bros. Engineers & Contractors (P) Ltd., the judges observed:
“Further, the only reason stated for condonation of delay in filing in both the appeals, as stated hereinabove, that government offices were not functioning to its full capacity due to the Lok Sabha Election 2024, is completely vague and cannot in any manner justify the delay in filing both the appeals.”
“There is no explanation for each day's delay and no plausible reason is forthcoming as to how Lok Sabha Election 2024 prevented the appellant for taking necessary steps for filing the present appeals within the limitation period,” it added.
Case Title Kirloskar Pneumatic Company Limited v. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited
Case Number OMP (ENF.) (COMM.) 293/2025
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 1147
The Delhi High Court on 9 October held that an arbitral award stamped in one State does not attract additional stamp duty merely because it is brought into another State for enforcement, unless a specific statutory provision imposes such liability.
Justice Om Prakash Shukla rejected Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited's (ONGC) objection to the stamp duty paid on an arbitral award in favour of Kirloskar Pneumatic Company Limited, holding that differential stamp duty cannot be imposed without statutory authority. The Bench observed:
“The material consideration, therefore, is the existence of a statutory provision attracting such additional liability. The mere fact that an instrument executed and stamped in one State is subsequently brought into another State does not, without more, establish an obligation to pay differential stamp duty”.
Bombay High Court
Case Title : AND Movie Products LLP v. Echelon Productions & Ors.
Case Number : Commercial Arbitration Petition (L) No. 34544 of 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 578
On Monday, 19 October, the Bombay High Court ruled that Echelon Productions cannot commercially release the Hindi film Tu Hai Meri Kiran, starring Sonakshi Sinha and Zaheer Iqbal, until it secures co-producer AND Movie Products LLP's Rs. 8.85 crore investment with 15% annual interest. The film is scheduled for theatrical release on 23 October 2026.
A Single Bench of Justice Amit Borkar substantially allowed AND Movie Products LLP's petition seeking interim protection of its investment and contractual rights in the film. He observed:
“In my view, the proper way is not to stop the Film from being released in every situation. Such an order would not consider the money, time and effort spent by the Respondents in producing the Film and the possibility of earning revenue from its release. At the same time, it would not be proper to allow the Film to be released and commercially exploited without securing the Petitioner's investment, when the agreement provides for repayment and the prescribed period has expired.”
Bombay High Court Appoints Arbitrator In Suncrypto-WazirX Dispute Over $261,967 In Crypto Assets
Case Title Angelic Info Tech Private Limited v. Zanmai Labs Private Limited
Case Number Comm Arbitration Application (L) No. 38566 of 2025
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 579
The Bombay High Court on 16 October appointed a sole arbitrator to resolve a dispute between Angellic Info Tech Private Limited, operator of Suncrypto, and Zanmai Labs Private Limited, operator of WazirX, over the alleged inability to withdraw crypto assets worth USD 261,967.86729.
Justice Amit Borkar allowed Angellic Info Tech's petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and appointed Advocate Dormaan Dalal as the sole arbitrator. He held:
“In my view, only because the Broker Terms form part of the User Agreement, it does not mean that the provisions of the Broker Terms have no separate meaning or effect. The parties have provided how the two documents will operate when there is a conflict between them. This arrangement agreed by the parties has to be given proper effect.”
Housing Society Not Liable for Developer's RERA Obligations As Landowner: Bombay High Court
Case Title Maruthi Co-operative Housing Society Limited v. Tridhaatu Maruthi Developers LLP & Anr.
Case Number Commercial Arbitration Petition (L) No. 26942 of 2026
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 580
The Bombay High Court has ruled that a housing society as a landowner cannot be held liable for a developer's obligations under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA), merely because the developer entered into agreements for sale with flat purchasers under a redevelopment agreement.
Justice Arun R. Pedneker granted interim relief to Maruthi Co-operative Housing Society Limited, allowing it to appoint a new developer. The court also directed payment of ₹7.35 crore in unpaid transit rent and clearance of ₹1.11 crore in statutory dues.
The court observed, “However, none of the provisions of RERA renders the owner of the freehold or leasehold interest in the land, who enters into a development agreement with a developer, liable for discharging the developer's obligations under RERA merely because the developer subsequently enters into agreements for sale with third-party flat purchasers on the basis of such development agreement.”
Bombay High Court Appoints Receiver To Take Possession Of Medical Equipment Financed By Siemens
Case Title Siemens Financial Services Private Limited v. Nadeem Ahmad Khandey & Ors.
Case Number Commercial Arbitration Petition (L) No. 25053 of 2026
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 583
The Bombay High Court on 19 October appointed a Court Receiver to take physical possession of medical equipment financed by Siemens Financial Services Private Limited through a Rs. 1.05 crore loan, following repeated repayment defaults by borrower Nadeem Ahmad Khandey.
A Single Bench comprising Justice Amit Borkar directed the Receiver to hand over the equipment to Siemens for custody pending arbitration, while prohibiting its sale, auction, transfer or dismantling. He observed:
“The order is not being passed on the basis of any finding of fraud or a proved attempt to defeat the arbitration proceedings. It is being passed because of the contractual security, the continued defaults, the failure to hand over possession and the need to preserve the machinery until the dispute is decided.”
Bombay High Court Allows Five Doctors' Appeal In 21-Year Property Dispute, Finds Prima Facie Fraud
Case Title Dr. Devidas R. Sheregar & Ors. v. Zeenal Constructions Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Case Number Commercial Arbitration Appeal (L) No. 25270 of 2026 in Commercial Arbitration Petition (L) No. 12193 of 2026
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 588
The Bombay High Court on 21 October set aside a Single Judge's order refusing interim protection to five doctors who invested Rs. 60 lakh in commercial premises under a 2005 agreement, holding that the developers had prima facie attempted to cheat them by retaining their investment for over 21 years without delivering the promised property.
A Division Bench comprising Justices A.S. Gadkari and Kamal Khata allowed the appeal filed by Dr. Devidas R. Sheregar, Dr. Alka Jain, Dr. Manoj S. Aithal, Dr. Suresh Shetty and Dr. Shishir Shetty against Zeenal Constructions Private Limited and other parties, protecting their contractual rights over the proposed premises in the Krishna Ambika Arcade Project in Goregaon, Mumbai. The judges observed:
“Perusal of the record indicates that, the Respondents have attempted to play fraud on the Appellants. They have outrightly cheated the Appellants. In our view, the Appellants, who are a group of doctors by profession, had together invested their hard-earned money with the Respondents, who continue to use the monies of the Appellants interest free for over 21 years and now claim that the MoU stood terminated or that it came to an end long ago by the conduct of the parties.”
Bombay High Court Restrains Developers From Dealing With Assets In ₹278 Crore Swan Corp Dispute
Case Title Swan Corp Limited & Ors. v. Subramanya Constructions and Developments Co. Limited & Ors.
Case Number Commercial Arbitration Petition (L) No. 32517 of 2026
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 593
The Bombay High Court on 22 October restrained Subramanya Constructions and Developments Co. Limited and Prakruthi Infrastructure and Development Co. Limited from dealing with their assets in a Rs. 278 crore arbitration settlement dispute with Swan Corp Limited.
A Bench of Justice Amit Borkar granted interim protection to Swan Corp Limited (formerly Swan Energy Limited), Cardinal Energy and Infrastructure Private Limited and Pegasus Ventures Private Limited, and directed the developers to disclose their financial records and preserve specified unsold properties in Mysore. It observed:
“This Court is not required to conclude that the financing efforts were dishonest merely because they were made. However, it can be seen that transactions concerning properties and interests relevant to the Petitioners' claim were being considered. Therefore, the present position of those properties and interests needs to be disclosed and protected.”
Case Title Wellgroomed Venture v. Dr. Kamat's Hospital
Case Number Arbitration Application No. 69 of 2026
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 589
The Bombay High Court on 29 September held that courts cannot appoint an arbitrator without ensuring compliance with the pre-arbitration procedure agreed upon by the parties.
Justice Amit Borkar dismissed an application filed by Wellgroomed Venture against Dr. Kamat's Hospital under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking appointment of an arbitrator to resolve a dispute over alleged maintenance and assessment dues of Rs. 29.36 lakh. The Bench observed:
“...arbitration itself is based upon the consent of the parties. The Court cannot change the procedure which the parties had agreed between themselves. When the Agreement provides that one step has to take place before the next step can be taken, that agreement has to be given proper meaning.”
Madras High Court
Madras High Court Stops Tamil Nadu Maritime Board From Prematurely Terminating Shop Licence
Case Title The PRG Shipping Private Limited v. Tamil Nadu Maritime Board & Anr.
Case Number Arb. Appln. Nos. 1268 and 1269 of 2026
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 327
The Madras High Court has recently restrained the Tamil Nadu Maritime Board from prematurely terminating a shop licence after it chose to allot the premises through negotiations despite the availability of an open tender process, only to seek fresh bids before the agreed tenure expired.
Justice K. Kumaresh Babu observed that the Board could not rely on a policy that was already available when it granted the original allotment as a reason to terminate the arrangement before its expiry.
“It is to be noted that the first respondent is a Statutory Authority being funded by the Government from the money of the public exchequer. Having taken a conscious decision to appoint the applicant as licensee and to terminate by a policy which was available even at the point of appointing cannot be a reason for termination,” the court held.
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Case Title Ashok Kumar v. Bhupendra Kumar Lunkad and Others
Case Number Civil Revision No. 1152 of 2026
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC(MP) 71
The Madhya Pradesh High Court on Friday ruled that the doctrine of merger does not apply to arbitral awards, meaning the 12-year limitation period for executing an award runs from the date it becomes enforceable and not from a subsequent court order.
“No appeal is provided against arbitral award, and therefore, no question of merger of arbitral award into any order passed by the civil court is made out. It cannot be accepted that the award merged into the order passed by civil court. These are two different forums. Arbitral proceedings are different and court proceedings are different, therefore, by no stretch of imagination it can be accepted that the award would merge in the order passed by the civil court under Section 34 or 37, meaning thereby the doctrine of merger is not applicable to the arbitral awards,” Justice Vinay Saraf observed.
The court added, “Consequently, the limitation for filing the execution of arbitral award would start from the date, when it becomes enforceable.”