LiveLawBiz Arbitration Weekly Digest: October 26- October 31, 2026
Shivani PS
2 Nov 2026 11:35 AM IST
NOMINAL INDEX
Shreeram Builders v. Upendra Kantilal Thanawala and Others, 2026 LLBiz SC 348
M/s Royal Construction Company Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s National Projects Construction Corporation, 2026 LLBiz SC 346
South Bihar Power Distribution Company Ltd. v. India Power Corporation Ltd. & Anr., 2026 LLBiz SC 345
Laxmi Madhukar Athawale v. SSD Escatics Private Limited & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 620
Anil Sunder Jhangiani v. Om Sadan Cooperative Housing Society Limited & Anr., 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 606
5 Paisa Capital Limited v. Ankit Agarwal, 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 618
Nisus Finance Services Co. Limited & Anr. v. Blisvins Realty Private Limited & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 617
Achieve Hospitality v. Malad Gymkhana Limited, 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 602
Kumar Urban Development Private Limited v. The Jal Ratn Deep Co-operative Housing Society Limited, 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 601
Forech India Limited v. JSW Jaigarh Port Limited, 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 599
State of U.P. through Additional Chief Secretary, Public Works Department, Government of U.P., Lucknow and Others v. M/s Apex Construction Company, Mathura through Director/Proprietor Sri Jagdish Chowdhary and Another, 2026 LLBiz HC (ALL) 89
Global Buildocon Through Its Partners Tejkumar Tanted and Others v. Harsh S/o Bharat Sing Chauhan Through POA Holder Anand and Another, 2026 LLBiz HC (MP) 76
SAM Industries Ltd. v. Mahesh & Others, 2026 LLBiz HC (MP) 74
Anjana v. M/s Sulabh Syntex, 2026 LLBiz HC (MP) 73
M/s Power Mech Projects Ltd. v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others, 2026 LLBiz HC (MP) 72
P.K. Krishnamurthy v. C.V. James, 2026 LLBiz HC (KER) 202
Kamal Krishan Chibber v. UT of J&K & Others, 2026 LLBiz HC (JAM) 36
Kashmir Confectionary Store and Others v. M/s Mother Choice Health Care India, 2026 LLBiz HC (JAM) 35
MMTC Ltd. v. Chauhan Jewellers & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 1192
Pramod Kumar Goel v. Union of India, 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 1170
Telecommunications Consultants India Limited v. Vista Information Systems Private Limited, 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 1175
Chief Electoral Officer & Anr. v. M/s Mahlakshmi Light House, 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 1183
Thor Ventures (OPC) Private Limited v. NYEQ Technologies Private Limited, 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 1181
Flowmore Limited v. M/s Skipper Limited, 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 1184
M/s S.R. Ashok & Associates v. Delhi Development Authority & Anr., 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 1186
MMTC Limited v. Aust Grain Exports Pty Ltd, 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 1187
Utracon Corporation Pte Ltd v. Ucon PT Structural System Private Limited & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 1189
M/s Reha Environ Private Limited & Anr. v. Government of Puducherry & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 334
Supreme Court
Case Title Shreeram Builders v. Upendra Kantilal Thanawala and Others
Case Number Civil Appeal Nos. 9817–9818 of 2024
Citation 2026 LLBiz SC 348
On 29 October, the Supreme Court disposed of appeals filed by Shreeram Builders and upheld the Bombay High Court's decision to set aside an arbitral award directing the execution of a sale deed in favour of the builder, holding that the arbitrators had disregarded the parties' contractual terms.
A Division Bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kumar and Sanjeev Sachdeva reiterated that the nature of an agreement must be determined by the rights and obligations it creates, rather than its title or the stamp duty paid on it. Relying on Sasan Power Limited v. North American Coal Corporation (India) Limited, the judges observed:
“Thus, it is the contents of the agreement that would determine its actual nature. Hence, the stamp duty did not conclude the issue and the agreement had to be examined, not only for its import but also what it entailed in the context of the arbitration proceedings.”
Case Title M/S ROYAL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY PVT. LTD VERSUS M/S NATIONAL PROJECTS CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION
Case Number ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO. 14005 of 2026
Citation 2026 LLBiz SC 346
The Supreme Court on Wednesday asked the Law Commission of India to study the legal framework governing the enforcement of arbitral awards and recommend changes to ensure that successful parties can recover awarded amounts without prolonged litigation.
The Court asked the Commission to identify practical obstacles to timely recovery, examine enforcement mechanisms in other jurisdictions and consider whether domestic and foreign arbitral awards require separate procedures or a common framework with appropriate safeguards.
"In these circumstances, we request the Law Commission of India to undertake a focused study of the statutory and procedural framework governing the enforcement and execution of arbitral awards. The study may identify the practical impediments to timely recovery, examine the experience of other jurisdictions, and consider whether domestic and foreign arbitral awards warrant distinct enforcement procedures or a common framework with appropriate safeguards.", a bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and Aparesh Kumar Singh said.
High Court Cannot Extend Arbitrator's Mandate Merely Because It Appointed Arbitrator: Supreme Court
Case Title SOUTH BIHAR POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LTD. VERSUS INDIA POWER CORPORATION RESPONDENT(S) LTD. & ANR.
Case Number CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9313 OF 2026
Citation 2026 LLBiz SC 345
The Supreme Court has held that a High Court's power to appoint an arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 does not automatically empower it to extend the arbitrator's mandate under Section 29A(4) of the Act, even when the arbitrator was appointed by the Chief Justice of the High Court or his designate.
The Court said that the power to extend the mandate rests with the competent court as defined under Section 2(1)(e) of the Act.
"Based on our above discussion and analysis, we hold that the view taken by the High Court in so far the third question is concerned i.e. the Chief Justice of the High Court or his designate empowered under Section 11 of the 1996 Act can grant extension of time under Section 29A(4) is clearly unsustainable in law. The conclusion reached by the High Court that the jurisdiction to extend the period of time has to be exercised by the High Court under Section 29A of the 1996 Act is not correct and is accordingly set aside.", a division bench of Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Atul S. Chandurkar observed.
Bombay High Court
Bombay High Court Allows Widow To Withdraw ₹1.25 Crore Pending Arbitration Over Disputed Flat Sale
Case Title: Laxmi Madhukar Athawale v. SSD Escatics Private Limited & Ors.
Case Number Interim Application (L) No. 33914 of 2026 in Commercial Arbitration Petition No. 682 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 620
The Bombay High Court on 27 October allowed Laxmi Madhukar Athawale, a 75-year-old widow, to withdraw Rs. 1.25 crore with accrued interest deposited by SSD Escatics Private Limited and its representatives, pending arbitration over a Mumbai flat allegedly sold to her despite an earlier sale and mortgage.
Justice Amit Borkar held that continued retention of money deposited as interim protection may cause undue hardship when circumstances materially change, and that withdrawal may be permitted subject to safeguards preserving the parties' rights in the underlying dispute. The Bench held:
“The money lying in Court comes from the very transaction relating to her purchase of the flat. Keeping the entire amount in Court for an unlimited period, even after the circumstances have changed, would cause continuing hardship to her".
Case Title Anil Sunder Jhangiani v. Om Sadan Cooperative Housing Society Limited & Anr.
Case Number Commercial Arbitration Petition (L) No. 31481 of 2026
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 606
The Bombay High Court has recently ruled that a housing society member cannot be denied interim protection in a redevelopment dispute merely because he has not signed the redevelopment agreement.
Justice Amit Borkar held that the member's recorded membership and claimed rights in the property must also be considered.
“However, the fact that the Petitioner has not signed the agreement is not enough to reject his Petition without considering his claim, membership and need for interim protection. He is a recorded member claiming rights in premises forming part of the building being redeveloped. His claimed entitlement is directly affected by the Development Agreement and the steps being taken by the Respondents under it,” the court held.
Case Title 5 Paisa Capital Limited v. Ankit Agarwal
Case Number Arbitration Petition No. 380 of 2020
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 618
The Bombay High Court has set aside an arbitral award directing stockbroker 5 Paisa Capital Limited to pay ₹15.92 lakh to an investor over a dispute involving a technical glitch in its trading software.
Justice Aarti Sathe held that the appellate arbitral tribunal had failed to decide key issues, including whether the glitch caused the investor's losses and whether the broker was justified in liquidating his positions under its Risk Policy.
The court observed that the tribunal had merely reproduced the parties' submissions without returning findings on their rival contentions.
“All these are questions which are rival contentions advanced by the parties which have neither been considered nor any finding has been rendered on them by the Appellate Arbitral Tribunal. This Court, therefore, cannot undertake the exercise to adjudicate upon these issues and come to an independent finding under Section 34 of the Act, and would be thus constrained to set aside the impugned appellate arbitral award which suffers from the vice of being an award rendered without giving findings on contentious issues," the court held.
Invalid Arbitrator Appointment Process Does Not Invalidate Arbitration Agreement: Bombay High Court
Case Title Nisus Finance Services Co. Limited & Anr. v. Blisvins Realty Private Limited & Ors.
Case Number Commercial Arbitration Application No. 620/2026
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 617
The Bombay High Court has held that an invalid procedure for appointing an arbitrator does not invalidate the underlying arbitration agreement, which may remain enforceable even if the agreed appointment mechanism cannot be followed.
A Single Bench of Justice Amit Borkar made the observation while allowing an application filed by Nisus Finance Services Co. Limited and Nisus BCD Advisors LLP seeking the appointment of an arbitrator to resolve their disputes with Blisvins Realty Private Limited and others.
The court ruled that the unilateral appointment of an arbitrator by a party interested in the dispute was invalid, but this did not affect the underlying arbitration agreement.
“However, the existence of an arbitration agreement and the validity of the procedure for appointment of an Arbitrator are two different things. The arbitration agreement may continue to be valid even if the method of appointment mentioned in it cannot be followed,” the court held.
Bombay High Court Stays Malad Gymkhana's Restaurant Termination Notice, Bars Third-Party Rights
Case Title Achieve Hospitality Vs. Malad Gymkhana Limited
Case Number COMM ARBITRATION PETITION (L) NO.33587 OF 2026
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 602
On Monday, 26 October, the Bombay High Court partly allowed Achieve Hospitality's petition against Malad Gymkhana Limited, staying the termination notice concerning its existing restaurant and restraining the Gymkhana from creating third-party rights in a proposed new restaurant and two banquet halls pending arbitration.
A Bench of Justice Amit Borkar held that a party cannot bypass a contractually agreed cure period when terminating an agreement and must preserve the existing business arrangement pending arbitration where the validity of the termination is seriously disputed. He held:
“I am of the view that the Petition deserves to be allowed in part. At this stage, it would not be proper to decide whether every term of Clause 17 is enforceable or to direct immediate handover of the new restaurant and the two banquet halls. These issues will have to be decided in arbitration. Equally, it would not be proper to permit the Respondent to obstruct the Petitioner's existing business or create third-party rights in the disputed premises while the contractual issues remain unresolved and the validity of the termination notice is open to serious doubt."
Liquidated Damages Need No Proof Of Actual Loss If It Is Difficult To Quantify: Bombay High Court
Case Title Kumar Urban Development Private Limited v. The Jal Ratn Deep Co-operative Housing Society Limited
Case Number Commercial Arbitration Petition No. 443 of 2017
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 601
The Bombay High Court on 23 October held that proof of actual loss is not necessary for awarding liquidated damages where the loss is difficult to quantify and the amount stipulated in the contract represents a genuine pre-estimate of damages agreed upon by the parties.
Justice Aarti Sathe dismissed a petition filed by Kumar Urban Development Private Limited under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and upheld an arbitral award directing it to pay Rs. 2.675 crore to The Jal Ratn Deep Co-operative Housing Society Limited for delays in redeveloping 97 residential flats in Mumbai. It observed:
“In cases where damages or loss is difficult to prove, then the liquidated damages amount named in the contract, if it is a genuine pre-estimate of damage or loss agreed between the parties, then in that event the actual damage or loss need not be proved.”
Case Title Forech India Limited v. JSW Jaigarh Port Limited
Case Number Arbitration Petition No. 1775 of 2015
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 599
The Bombay High Court has held that an arbitral tribunal cannot reject one party's evidence merely because its witnesses are company employees while accepting evidence from similarly placed in-house witnesses of the opposing party.
Justice Arun R. Pedneker made the observation while setting aside a ₹2.16 crore arbitral award against Forech India Limited in favour of JSW Jaigarh Port Limited over defective conveyor belts. The Court held that the tribunal's unequal treatment of witnesses amounted to one-sided appreciation of evidence.
“The wholesome rejection of one party's evidence, while accepting evidence the claimant, whose witnesses were also in-house, without composite scrutiny shows one sided appreciation. The Arbitral Tribunal has not engaged with the evidence of the Petitioner", it observed.
Allahabad High Court
Case Title : State of U.P. through Additional Chief Secretary, Public Works Department, Government of U.P., Lucknow and others v. M/s Apex Construction Company, Mathura through Director/Proprietor Sri Jagdish Chowdhary and another
Case Number: Arbitration Appeal No. 62 of 2023
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (ALL) 89
The Allahabad High Court has held that an arbitral tribunal cannot award compound interest, or interest upon interest, where the contract between the parties makes no provision for it. The Court held that while the tribunal retains the power to grant interest both for the period before the reference and for the pendente lite and future periods, the compounding of that interest is impermissible in the absence of a specific stipulation.
Section 31(7)(a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, gives the arbitral tribunal, unless the parties have agreed otherwise, the discretion to include in the sum awarded interest at such rate as it deems reasonable, on the whole or any part of the money, for the whole or any part of the period between the date the cause of action arose and the date of the award.
Clause (b) provides that a sum directed to be paid by an arbitral award shall, unless the award otherwise directs, carry interest at 2% higher than the current rate of interest prevalent on the date of the award, from the date of the award till payment.
The bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Jaspreet Singh held
“It is now too well settled to be disputed that the compound interest cannot be granted unless there is a stipulation in the contract. The Arbitral Tribunal is a creature of the
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Case Title Global Buildocon Through Its Partners Tejkumar Tanted And Others v. Harsh S/o Bharat Sing Chauhan Through POA Holder Anand And Another
Case Number Arbitration Case No. 88 of 2026
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC (MP) 76
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has refused to appoint an arbitrator in a dispute over Global Buildocon's ₹1.25 crore claim concerning the proposed Global Towers residential project in Indore. It held that a clause allowing parties to approach civil courts if arbitration fails does not constitute a valid arbitration agreement.
A Single Bench of Justice Vinay Saraf ruled that Clause 5 of the development agreement did not make the arbitrator's decision final and binding on the parties. The court observed:
“After hearing counsel for the parties and perusal of documents, especially the Development Agreement Clause 5, this Court is of the view that the Clause 5 cannot be treated as an arbitration clause, because the clause itself provides that if the arbitrators are failed to decide the dispute, the parties will be free to approach Civil Court or any other Court. Meaning thereby, the decision of the arbitrator will not be final and binding upon the parties and the intention of the parties was to approach to the arbitrator for the purpose of resolution of dispute, between the parties and though the word has been used arbitration in the first part of the Clause 5, but the intention of the parties was not to resolve the dispute through arbitration.”
Fraud Allegations Do Not Automatically Bar Arbitration In Civil Disputes: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Case Title SAM Industries Ltd. v. Mahesh & Others
Case Number Arbitration Case No. 6 of 2026
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC (MP) 74
The Madhya Pradesh High Court on 23 October held that allegations of fraud and forgery do not automatically render a dispute non-arbitrable when they arise from a civil dispute under an arbitration agreement and can be examined by the arbitral tribunal.
Justice Vinay Saraf made the observation while allowing an application by SAM Industries Ltd. under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to appoint an arbitrator for its dispute with Mahesh, and proposed to appoint former Supreme Court Judge Justice J.K. Maheshwari as the arbitrator and directed the Principal Registrar to obtain his consent and declaration. The Bench observed:
“…Clause 14 of the agreement provides an arbitration clause and despite levelling the allegation of fraud and forgery, the matter is referrable to the arbitration in so far it relates to the dispute between applicant and non applicant No. 1, as the allegation of fraud and forgery is connected with the civil dispute and not having any larger impact on the society. The execution of agreement and the allegation of fraud and forgery can be examined by the Arbitrator on the basis of pleadings of the parties and therefore, in view of this Court the dispute between applicant and non applicant No. 1 is referable arbitration as per the terms of the agreement.”
Arbitral Award Challenge Limitation Runs From Certified Copy Receipt: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Case Title Anjana v. M/s. Sulabh Syntex
Case Number Arbitration Appeal No. 303 of 2023
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC (MP) 73
The Madhya Pradesh High Court on 23 October held that where an arbitral tribunal has not served a signed copy of an award under Section 31(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act), the limitation period for challenging the award under Section 34(3) begins when the aggrieved party receives a certified copy.
Justice Vinay Saraf dismissed an appeal filed by Anjana, proprietor of Maheshwari Vastra Bhandar, against the rejection of her application to set aside an arbitral award in favour of Sulabh Syntex. The Bench held:
“…The application under Section 34 for setting aside the award can be filed along with the signed copy of the award or with the certified copy of the award, meaning thereby if a party receives the certified copy of the award, the party may file the application under Section 34 and there would be no difficulty for the party to file the application for setting aside the award. Once the certified copy is received and a party is aggrieved by the award and does not choose to file the application for setting aside the same within the limitation period prescribed by the law, then the party would have to suffer for the negligent inaction.”
Criminal Investigation Cannot Be Used To Exert Pressure In Commercial Disputes: M.P. High Court
Case Title M/s Power Mech Projects Ltd. v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others
Case Number 2026:MPHC-JBP:72349
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC(MP) 72
The Madhya Pradesh High Court on 16 September held that criminal proceedings cannot be used to exert pressure in commercial disputes where allegations of fraud or diversion of funds do not disclose the essential ingredients of a criminal offence.
A Bench of Justice Himanshu Joshi quashed an Economic Offences Wing (EOW) complaint and consequential inquiry against Power Mech Projects Limited arising from a contractual dispute with Mapaex Minerals over sand mining projects, holding that the allegations did not disclose a criminal offence. The Court observed:
“In the present case, permitting the EOW inquiry to continue merely because the complaint uses allegations of fraud and diversion of funds, in circumstances where the underlying dispute is contractual and the essential ingredients of the alleged offences are not disclosed, would amount to permitting the criminal process to be utilised as a means of exerting pressure in a commercial dispute.”
Kerala High Court
Case Title P.K. Krishnamurthy v. C.V. James
Case Number O.P.(C) No. 1828 of 2026
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC(KER) 202
The Kerala High Court has reiterated that the three-month limitation period for challenging an arbitral award begins only when a party receives a duly signed copy of the award, not when the opposing party forwards an unsigned copy.
A single-judge bench of Justice Mohammed Nias C.P. observed, “Given the above, it follows that an unsigned draft, photocopy or other copy forwarded by the opposite party cannot, merely because it conveys the contents of the award, substitute for delivery and receipt of the signed copy under Section 31(5). The question is not whether the party knew of the award, but whether the signed award was delivered to and received by him in the manner contemplated by the Act.”
The court made the observation while dismissing a petition filed by P.K. Krishnamurthy, who had secured an arbitral award against C.V. James, proprietor of Sukhodaya Hospital, Kanjirappally. The award was passed in Krishnamurthy's favour on March 26, 2024, after which James challenged it under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Krishnamurthy argued that the challenge was time-barred because James had received an unsigned copy on April 8, 2024. James maintained that he received the signed copy from the arbitrator only on June 23, 2024
Jammu & Kashmir And Ladakh High Court
Case Title Kamal Krishan Chibber v. UT of J&K &others
Case Number Arb App No.05/2024
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC(JAM) 36
The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has recently held that entertaining time-barred claims in arbitration violates the statutory mandate under Section 43 of the Jammu and Kashmir Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1997, making the resulting award vulnerable to being set aside as contrary to public policy.
“Consequently, entertaining a time-barred claim violates statutory mandate, rendering the resulting award vulnerable to being set aside for violating Public Policy,” a division bench of Justice Rajnesh Oswal and Justice Rahul Bharti observed.
The court made the observation while dismissing a contractor's appeal against a single judge's decision setting aside an arbitral award in a dispute over construction work for the Wangat Weir project at Kangan.
Case Title Kashmir Confectionary Store and others v. M/s Mother Choice Health Care India
Case Number CR No. 36/2026 c/w CR No. 34/2026 CR No. 35/2026
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC(JAM) 35
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladkah High Court has held that arbitral awards arising from disputes referred to a Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council do not become nullities merely because the supplier is assumed to have been unregistered under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006, when the transactions took place.
The court dismissed three revision petitions challenging the orders of the Principal District Judge, Jammu, which had rejected the objections filed by the petitioners against the execution of the arbitral awards.
The Court was hearing three revision petitions challenging three separate orders passed by the Principal District Judge, Jammu, whereby applications filed by the petitioners under Section 47 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, objecting to the execution of decrees passed in terms of the awards of the learned Arbitrator, were dismissed.
The awards had arisen out of disputes referred to the Himachal Pradesh Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council under Section 18(2) of the MSME Act.
The matter was heard by Justice Sanjay Dhar, who observed,
“Even if, it is assumed that the respondent concern was not registered under MSME Act at the relevant time, still then for this reason only, the awards passed by the learned Arbitrator under the MSME Act would not become a nullity.
Delhi High Court
Arbitrators Need Not Discuss Every Document Or Contractual Clause In Award: Delhi High Court
Case Title MMTC Ltd. v. Chauhan Jewellers & Ors.
Case Number FAO(OS) (COMM) 108/2017 and CM APPL. 18464/2017
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 1192
The Delhi High Court has recently held that an arbitral award must be read fairly and as a whole, and arbitrators are not required to discuss every document or contractual clause separately, provided their reasoning is clear and reflects a permissible interpretation of the dispute.
A Division Bench of Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Bharat Parashar made the observation while partly allowing an appeal filed by MMTC Limited against Chauhan Jewellers and its partners in a ₹57.74 lakh dispute concerning five gold jewellery export consignments.
The Court set aside the arbitral award's rejection of claims relating to two consignments while upholding its findings concerning the remaining three.
The Court observed,
“Furthermore, an Award must be read fairly and as a whole. Arbitrators are not required to write exhaustive awards or to discuss every document and contractual clause in isolation. The decisive question is whether the pathway to the learned Tribunal's conclusion is discernible and reflects a permissible view of the dispute.”
CPWD Cannot Restrict Contractor's Arbitrator Choice To Its Own Panel: Delhi High Court
Case Title Pramod Kumar Goel v. Union of India Case No.: ARB.P. 1399/2026
Case Number ARB.P. 1399/2026
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 1170The Delhi High Court has held that the Central Public Works Department (CPWD) cannot appoint a sole arbitrator through a mechanism that empowers its own officer to make the appointment. It also cannot restrict a contractor's choice to a panel of arbitrators curated by the department.
Justice Sachin Datta observed:
“…the choice of the petitioner stands confined to a list of 'CPWD Empanelled Arbitrators' prepared by the respondent, with the Arbitrator Appointing Authority empowered to select and appoint from that list himself should the petitioner not exercise its option. That is not permissible as per Central Organisation for Railway Electrification (supra) and Kalpataru Projects International Ltd. The appointment mechanism contained in Clause 25 cannot, therefore, be sustained, and it is incumbent on this Court to appoint an independent Sole Arbitrator.”
The ruling came in a petition filed by Pramod Kumar Goel seeking the appointment of a sole arbitrator to resolve disputes arising from a contract with the Union of India through CPWD.
Case Title Telecommunications Consultants India Limited v. Vista Information Systems Private Limited
Case Number FAO(OS) (COMM) 140/2023
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 1175
The Delhi High Court has ruled that an objection to an arbitrator's ineligibility under Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, can be raised for the first time in an appeal and even at the execution stage, as the issue goes to the root of the arbitrator's jurisdiction.
“This issue of ineligibility of arbitrator goes to the root of the jurisdiction and can be raised for the first time in an appeal under Section 37 of the Act, even at the stage of execution,” a Division Bench of Justice Avneesh Jhingan and Justice Shail Jain ruled
The court set aside an arbitral award passed in favour of Vista Information Systems Private Limited after holding that the appointment of the sole arbitrator by Telecommunications Consultants India Limited (TCIL) violated Section 12(5), read with the Seventh Schedule of the Act.
Case Title Chief Electoral Officer & Anr. v. M/s Mahlakshmi Light House
Case Number FAO(OS) (COMM) 43/2018
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 1183
The Delhi High Court has upheld an arbitral award of over ₹1 crore to a contractor who supplied tents, furniture and electrical items on hire during the 1999 Lok Sabha elections. The court rejected a challenge by election authorities who alleged that the bills were inflated.
A Division Bench of Justice Avneesh Jhingan and Justice Shail Jain held that the arbitrator had reasonably relied on evidence of physical verification by Returning Officers before the structures were dismantled. The court found no reason to interfere with the arbitrator's assessment of the evidence.
“Suffice to say that the view taken by the arbitrator is plausible, suffers from no factual or legal error, much less perversity and calls for no interference,” the court ruled.
Unsuccessful Arbitration Party Must Meet Higher Threshold For Post-Award Relief: Delhi High Court
Case Title Thor Ventures (OPC) Private Limited v. NYEQ Technologies Private Limited
Case Number O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 461/2026 and O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 462/2026
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 1181
On 28 October, the Delhi High Court held that a party unsuccessful in arbitration can seek interim protection under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, after an adverse arbitral award, but must satisfy a higher threshold for such relief than at the pre-award stage.
Justice Tushar Rao Gedela granted interim protection to Thor Ventures (OPC) Private Limited, restraining NYEQ Technologies Private Limited from selling or creating third-party rights over two Gurugram properties pending the next hearing, despite an arbitral award rejecting Thor Ventures' claims. The Bench observed:
“That an unsuccessful party to the arbitration proceedings is entitled to invoke Section 9 of the Act, is unambiguous. That the onus of such an unsuccessful party to establish, prima facie, the ingredients of the triple test, is at a higher pedestal, in the post award situation than at the pre award scenario, is manifest."
Delhi High Court Sets Aside ₹8.15 Crore Award To Skipper Against Flowmore Over Prototype Inspection
Case Title Flowmore Limited v. M/s Skipper Limited
Case Number FAO(OS) (COMM) No. 31 of 2023
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 1184
The Delhi High Court on 28 October set aside an arbitral award of Rs. 8.15 crore in favour of Skipper Limited against Flowmore Limited, finding that the arbitrator's conclusions on prototype inspection and manufacturing clearance were unsupported by the evidence on record.
A Division Bench comprising Justices Avneesh Jhingan and Shail Jain held that an arbitral award can be set aside where the arbitrator's findings suffer from patent illegality, even though the scope of appellate interference under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, is limited. The judges held:
“The conclusion is on the basis that the appellant had granted mass production clearance for stubs, templates and towers and waived proto inspection. As discussed earlier there was neither a 'go-ahead' for mass production of towers nor the proto inspection of towers was waived.”
Case Title M/s S.R. Ashok & Associates v. Delhi Development Authority & Anr.
Case Number CS (OS) 361/2008 and CS (OS) 362/2008
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 1186
The Delhi High Court on 28 October dismissed Delhi Development Authority (DDA)'s objections to two arbitral awards of Rs. 30.91 lakh and Rs. 31.99 lakh in favour of S.R. Ashok & Associates in a housing construction dispute, including an award directing it to refund money recovered from the contractor under threat of blacklisting.
Justice Jasmeet Singh held that a payment made under threat of blacklisting cannot be treated as voluntary or as a settlement, particularly when the DDA failed to justify the recovery made more than nine years after the final construction bill. The Bench observed:
“Once the demand and the deposit are admitted, it was for the defendant No. 1 to justify the recovery but it adduced no material to do so. A deposit made under threat of blacklisting is also not voluntary, and the defendant No. 1 cannot treat it as a settlement. The Arbitrator was therefore entitled to direct a refund.”
Arbitral Tribunal Cannot Grant Interest Contrary To Express Terms Of Contract: Delhi High Court
Case Title MMTC Limited v. Aust Grain Exports Pty Ltd
Case Number FAO(OS) (COMM) No. 210 of 2023
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 1187
The Delhi High Court, on Wednesday, 28 October, held that an arbitral tribunal cannot award interest contrary to an express contractual provision excluding interest on a performance bank guarantee (PBG), as such an award conflicts with the contract and the public policy of India.
A Division Bench comprising Justices Avneesh Jhingan and Shail Jain set aside the arbitral award in favour of Aust Grain against Metals and Minerals Trading Corporation of India Limited (MMTC) to the limited extent that it granted interest on the performance bank guarantee (PBG). The judges held:
“…the tribunal rejected counter-claim no.2 for interest on the PBG but without reason or justification ultimately in concluding part of the award granted interest. In the peculiar facts of this case, without revisiting the facts or re-appreciating the evidence, the award of interest on the PBG is in conflict with the public policy of India and falls within the ambit of Section 34(2)(b)(ii) of the Act.”
Case Title Utracon Corporation Pte Ltd v. Ucon PT Structural System Private Limited & Ors.
Case Number CS(COMM) 661/2024
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 1189
The Delhi High Court has referred a trademark infringement and passing off suit filed by Singapore-based Utracon Corporation against its former Indian subsidiary, Ucon PT Structural System Private Limited, and other parties to arbitration.
The court held that a party cannot avoid arbitration merely by including a claim for relief that may not independently be arbitrable.
Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav observed that the dispute centred on the continued use of the trademark after the licence expired, rather than its registration or cancellation. The court held:
“The core of the suit is the post-term use of the marks by an ex-licensee and its affiliates. A party cannot avoid an arbitration agreement merely by adding a relief which, by itself, may not be arbitrable.”
Madras High Court
Objections To Award Enforcement Cannot Be Used To Reopen Arbitral Award Findings: Madras High Court
Case Title M/s Reha Environ Private Limited & Anr. v. Government of Puducherry & Ors.
Case Number CRP Nos.5394, 5220 and 5221 of 2026
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 334
The Madras High Court has ruled that objections to the enforcement of an arbitral award cannot be used to reopen findings on the merits after the award has attained finality. This applies where the judgment debtors had an opportunity to challenge the award through the prescribed legal process.
A Single Bench of Justice P.B. Balaji made the observation while allowing a challenge by Reha Environ Private Limited and Puducherry Municipal Services Private Limited against restrictions imposed on the execution of an arbitral award arising from a municipal solid-waste management project in Puducherry.
The court observed, “A Section 47 petition cannot be an appeal or challenge under Section 34 of the Arbitration Conciliation Act in disguise. The objections that are taken in the present Section 47 Application, is one such a classic case, where having failed to challenge the award in a manner known to law, the judgment debtors are attempting to re-agitate the award findings on merits, by moving the Section 47 Application under the Civil Procedure Code.”