LiveLawBiz Arbitration Half Yearly Digest: January - June, 2026
Shivani PS
2 July 2026 3:14 PM IST
Supreme Court
Case Title : Jan De Nul Dredging India Pvt. Ltd. v. Tuticorin Port Trust
Case Number : Civil Appeal No. 98 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz SC 15
The Supreme Court, recently, set aside a Madras High Court order that had deleted compensation awarded to a dredging contractor and reiterated that appellate courts cannot interfere with arbitral awards merely because they prefer a different interpretation of the contract. A Bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Pankaj Mithal held that courts hearing appeals in arbitration matters have a narrow and limited role. Once an arbitral award has been examined and found free from serious flaws, an appellate court cannot re-enter the dispute or reassess the merits.
“If an award is not liable to be disturbed under Section 34 of the Act, the same could not have been interfered with in exercise of powers under Section 37 of the Act,” the court held. Emphasising why restraint is central to arbitration, the top court added, “In the event, the courts are allowed to step in at every stage and the arbitral awards are subjected to challenge before the courts in hierarchy before court of first instance, through regular appeals and finally by means of SLP/Civil Appeal before the Supreme Court, it would obviate/frustrate and defeat the very purpose of the Act.”
Case Title : Jagdeep Chowgule v. Sheela Chowgule and Ors
Case Number : SLP(C) Nos. 10944-10945 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz SC 30
The Supreme Court has held that an application seeking extension of time for an arbitral tribunal under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act lies before the civil court, even in cases where the High Court has appointed the arbitrator. The court clarified that the High Court's role ends with the appointment of the arbitrator and does not continue during the arbitration. A Bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice R. Mahadevan said the jurisdiction exercised by a High Court under Section 11 is limited in scope and comes to an end once the arbitral tribunal is constituted.
Relying on its own ruling in Kamal Gupta v. L.R. Builder (2025), the court held, "Exercise of jurisdiction under Section 11 stands exhausted upon the constitution of the arbitral tribunal. There is no residual supervisory or controlling power left with the High Court or the Supreme Court over the arbitral proceedings after appointment is made. To read Section 11 as conferring such enduring control would be to conflate appointment with supervision, a conflation which the Act as well as the precedents on the subject prohibit,” the Court observed.
Courts Cannot Substitute Plausible Arbitral View Merely Because Another Is Possible: Supreme Court
Case Title: Prakash Atlanta (JV) v. National Highways Authority of India
Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 4513 of 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz SC 17
The Supreme Court has reiterated that courts should exercise minimal interference with arbitral awards and cannot substitute an arbitral tribunal's interpretation of a contract merely because another view is possible. The court also held that although the Building and Other Construction Workers Act, 1996 (BOCW Act) and the Welfare Cess Act were brought into force in the mid-1990s, they could not be given effect to for several years due to the failure of governments to constitute statutory Welfare Boards and put the implementation machinery in place.
A bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kumar and Alok Aradhe made these observations on January 20 while deciding a batch of appeals arising from arbitral awards passed in disputes between contractors and the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI). The court said, “If an arbitral tribunal's view is found to be a possible and plausible one, it cannot be substituted merely because an alternate view is possible. Construction and interpretation of a contract and its terms is a matter for the arbitral tribunal to determine. Unless the same is found to be one that no fair-minded or reasonable person would arrive at, it cannot be interfered with.”
Supreme Court Orders Status Quo, Asset Disclosure In IMAX–E-City Arbitration Dispute
Case Title : E-City Real Estates Pvt Ltd & Anr. v. IMAX Corporation & Ors.
Case Number : Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.2537/2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz SC 22
The Supreme Court on Friday ordered the E-City group to maintain status quo over all its assets and disclose details of its movable and immovable properties while taking up a fresh challenge to the Bombay High Court's decision that revived enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in favour of IMAX Corporation. A bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and K V Viswanathan issued notice on a special leave petition filed by E-City Real Estates Pvt. Ltd. and another group entity, challenging the Bombay High Court's December 30, 2025 decision allowing enforcement of the arbitral awards. Before the Supreme Court on Friday, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for IMAX, stated that since the matter was now pending before the apex court, the company would not proceed with the execution of the arbitral awards for the time being. Recording the statement, the bench granted liberty to both sides to file their submissions.
Parties Cannot Rely On Pre-Arbitration Steps They Frustrated: Supreme Court
Case title – M/s Bhagheeratha Engineering Ltd. v. State of Kerala
Case Number : Civil Appeal No. 39 of 2026
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 5
The Supreme Court bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and KV Viswanathan, set aside a Kerala High Court judgment which had held that an arbitral tribunal cannot decide disputes beyond a specific issue referred to it and that a party cannot raise additional disputes without issuing a separate notice under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Court noted that the conduct of the State showed that it never treated the Adjudicator's decision as final and binding and had itself sought to reopen all disputes by asking for the entire decision to be declared null and void. The Court held that a party cannot take advantage of its own conduct to defeat arbitration.
Case Title – Motilal Oswal Financial Services Limited v. Santosh Cordeiro and Another
Case Number : Civil Appeal no. 36 of 2026
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 4
The Supreme Court upheld a Bombay High Court order appointing an arbitrator in a dispute arising from a leave and licence agreement for office premises of Motilal Oswal Financial Services Limited at Malad, Mumbai, holding that an arbitration agreement existed between the parties.
A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan held that the High Court was right in allowing the application filed by the licensor and appointing a sole arbitrator, as the court's jurisdiction at that stage was confined to examining the existence of an arbitration agreement under Section 11(6A) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. On Section 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882 the court stated that, “it will be clear that Section 41 is a provision conferring jurisdiction on the Small Causes Court for certain types of disputes and cannot be interpreted to mean that ex proprio vigore (by its own force), it neutralizes arbitration clauses in agreements.”
It also referred to later Supreme Court decisions, including Vidya Drolia v. Durga Trading Corpn. and the seven-judge bench ruling in In re Interplay Between Arbitration Agreements under Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 & Stamp Act, 1899, to reiterate that conferment of jurisdiction on a specific court is not by itself decisive of non-arbitrability.
Case Title : R. Savithri Naidu v. The Cotton Corporation of India Ltd. & Anr.
Case Number : Civil Appeal No. 1602/2026 [Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 19779 of 2024]
Citation : 2026 LLBiz SC 66
The Supreme Court has reaffirmed that a person who purchases disputed property after the passing of an arbitral award cannot obstruct its attachment in execution proceedings. A Bench of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti warned that permitting such objections would derail the execution process, causing proceedings to get trapped “in an infinite loop and practically never get completed,” and reducing decrees to mere “paper tigers.”
The court emphasised its ruling in Jini Dhanrajgir v. Shibu Mathew (2023), that "winning a case is meaningless unless the winner actually gets the relief they sought,” and stressed that the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure “must be employed to secure actual relief, not just a formal decree.” Rejecting the appeal, the Court held that for the purposes of Order XXI Rule 102 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the relevant date is the institution of the proceedings and not merely the pendency of a challenge to the award.
Case Title : Aspek Media Pvt Ltd & Ors. vs Entertainment City Ltd
Case Number : SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No. 3190/2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz SC 68
The Supreme Court dismissed a special leave petition filed by Aspek Media Pvt. Ltd. and others against Entertainment City Limited, declining to interfere with a Delhi High Court order in an arbitration matter.
A Bench of Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Atul S. Chandurkar said: “After hearing learned counsel, we see no reason and ground to interfere with the order impugned. Accordingly, the special leave petition is dismissed.”
Justice Jasmeet Singh held that there were “clear findings of diversion of funds” by the directors and distinguished earlier precedents relied upon by the judgment debtor.
The Court allowed the application, directed the impleadment of Harish Choudhary and Dharamvir Choudhary, Directors of Aspek Media Pvt. Ltd., and ordered them to file affidavits of assets from financial year 2014-15 onwards in terms of Order XXI Rule 41(2) CPC.
Case Title : Rashtriya Chemicals & Fertilisers Ltd vs Thermax Ltd
Case Number : Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 6365/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz SC 70
The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed a special leave petition filed by Rashtriya Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd (RCF) challenging a Bombay High Court order that refused to allow it to retain Rs. 218.45 crore deposited by Thermax Ltd after an arbitral award in its favour was set aside. A bench of Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Alok Aradhe declined to interfere with the January 28, 2026 order of the High Court's division bench.
The Court observed, “While we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the High Court, we make it clear that the petitioner shall deposit the amount as directed, within four weeks from today.” With these observations, the special leave petition was dismissed.
The division bench had held that once the arbitral award dated June 5, 2023 was set aside, there was no arbitral award in existence and, therefore, RCF could not claim any right over the amount deposited as a condition for stay of the award.
Case Title : Asad Mueed & Ors. vs Jamia Hamdard Deemed to Be University
Case Number : PETITION(S) FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (C) NO(S).3280/2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz SC 65
The Supreme Court deemed the Consent of Affiliation to have been granted by Jamia Hamdard Deemed to be University to Hamdard Institute of Medical Sciences & Research (HIMSR), after noting that 49 postgraduate students had already been admitted pursuant to its earlier interim directions.
A Bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan said the consent would be treated as granted, subject to the final outcome of the Special Leave Petition.
“In the circumstances, we observe that since there has been admission of as many as forty nine students in the third petitioner-College, the consent of affiliation is deemed to have been granted by the first respondent University in favour of the third respondent-University subject to the result of this Special Leave Petition.”, the court said.
On appeal, the high court observed that an executing court cannot travel beyond the arbitral mandate or adjudicate complex regulatory issues reserved for statutory authorities. It held that compliance must be subject to applicable statutory regimes and that enforcement cannot override decisions of competent regulatory bodies.
Case Title : Talwandi Sabo Power Ltd vs Punjab State Power Corporation
Case Number : Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 6462/2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz SC 72
The Supreme Court has recently refused to interfere with a Punjab and Haryana High Court decision dismissing a writ petition filed by Vedanta Group company Talwandi Sabo Power Ltd against an arbitral tribunal's order that held part of its claim fell outside the scope of arbitration in its dispute with Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd (PSPCL). A bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and K. Vinod Chandran dismissed the special leave petition.
The Court said, “The special leave petition is, accordingly, dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioner, Talwandi Sabo Power Ltd., to take recourse to the remedy referred to in paragraph-13 of the impugned judgment/order in accordance with law.”
It held that an effective statutory remedy was available and that writ jurisdiction cannot ordinarily be invoked in such circumstances. The High Court imposed costs of Rs 50 thousand on the company and directed that the amount be deposited with the High Court Legal Services Committee within three months.
Direction To Deposit Proceeds In Escrow Warranted Only In Limited Circumstances: Supreme Court
Case Title : A2Z Infraservices Ltd & Anr vs Quippo Infrastructure Ltd & Ors
Case Number : Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.8636/2021
Citation: 2026 LLBiz SC 60
The Supreme Court has held that a direction to deposit proceeds in an escrow account cannot be issued as a matter of routine in arbitration dispute.
The court observed that such an arrangement is ordinarily warranted only where the underlying contract providing for escrow is subsisting or where there is material to show that the party receiving the money is likely to divert it and lacks sufficient assets to satisfy the award if it goes against it.
A Bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Manmohan allowed an appeal filed by A2Z Infraservices Ltd, setting aside a Calcutta High Court order which had directed deposit of contractual receipts into an escrow account during the pendency of arbitration proceedings.
“Ordinarily, a direction to deposit the proceeds in an Escrow Account is to be made where either the contract between the parties envisaging such arrangement is subsisting or the party who is to receive the money is likely to divert it and, if allowed to do so, has insufficient assets to make good the amount in case the award goes against it. In short, the purpose of directing such an arrangement is to ensure the execution of the award ultimately passed,” the Court observed.
Case Title : National Highways Authority of India vs Vadodara Mumbai Expressway PKG-08 Pvt Ltd
Case Number : Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos.622-623 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz SC 59
The Supreme Court has modified a Delhi High Court order that had directed the National Highways Authority of India to deposit the entire arbitral award of over Rs. 1,019 crore in its dispute with Vadodara Mumbai Expressway PKG-08 Pvt. Ltd., and instead ordered it to deposit 50% of the total amount referred to in its order.
A bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K.V. Viswanathan was hearing special leave petitions arising out of the High Court's November 19, 2025 order passed in proceedings under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
“We modify the order passed by the High Court to the extent that NHAI shall deposit 50% of the total amount referred to above with the Registry of the Delhi High Court within a period of eight weeks from today.” the Court directed.
The High Court had directed NHAI to deposit Rs 5,32,78,50,000 awarded for Phase VIII and Rs 4,86,24,13,440 awarded for Phase IX, aggregating Rs 101,902,633,440. The Supreme Court noted that with interest the amount came to Rs. 1,197,72,60,596 as on February 9, 2026. The awards were granted in favour of the concessionaire towards adjusted equity.
Case Title : E-City Real Estates Pvt Ltd & ANR vs IMAX Corporation & Ors
Case Number : Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.2537/2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz SC 22
The Supreme Court of India on Wednesday appointed former apex court judge Justice Abhay S. Oka as mediator to explore the possibility of settlement between IMAX Corporation and the E-City Group in their dispute concerning enforcement of foreign arbitral awards. The court was hearing the matter arising out of the Bombay High Court's December 2025 judgment reviving enforcement proceedings in favour of IMAX.
A bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K.V. Viswanathan was further informed that the hearing on merits would require at least a full day of arguments and would take considerable time. In view of the pendency of the matter and the prolonged history of the dispute, the court deemed it appropriate to explore the possibility of an amicable resolution. “We are of the view having regards to the fact that this litigation between the parties is now two decades old. They should make all possible endevours to sit, talk and try to arrive at some equitable settlement. In such circumstances, we appoint Hon'ble Justice Abhay Oka, former judge of this court to act as mediator between the parties.”, the court said.
High Courts Cannot Nullify Prior Arbitral Proceedings While Substituting Arbitrator: Supreme Court
Case Title : Ankhim Holdings Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. versus Zaveri Construction Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL NO. 779/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz SC 53
The Supreme Court of India has observed hat while appointing a substitute arbitrator under Section 15(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, High Courts cannot invalidate prior arbitral proceedings or orders. A Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K.V. Viswanathan set aside a portion of an order passed by the Bombay High Court, which, while appointing a substitute arbitrator, had declared arbitral proceedings conducted on seven dates between March 17, 2022 and August 25, 2022, to be void on the ground that they were undertaken during the insolvency moratorium.
“The proper and legal course for the High Court acting under Section 15(2) of the Act, 1996, should have been to appoint a substitute arbitrator to continue from the existing stage of the proceedings,” the Court observed.
The Court held that the High Court, while acting under Section 15(2), could not set aside an order rejecting a jurisdictional objection under Section 16, nor could it nullify interim orders passed under Section 17, except through the appellate mechanism prescribed under Section 37 of the Act.
Case Title : J. Muthurajan & Anr. vs S. Vaikundarajan & Ors.
Case Number : Special Leave Petition (C) No.16254 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz SC 57
The Supreme Court has restored a civil suit challenging a family partition deed and an alleged conciliation award, observing that any conciliation conducted in accordance with Part III of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 would attain the status and effect of an award unless the parties have expressly agreed to exclude its application.
"On a reading of Section 61, any conciliation between two parties brought about by following the procedure in Part III of the Act of 1996 would definitely get the status and effect of an Award under the Act of 1996 unless the parties have agreed otherwise; which agreement should be expressly for the exclusion of Part III of the Act of 1996, despite a conciliation having been proceeded with and concluded,” the Court observed.
A Bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and K. Vinod Chandran allowed appeals filed by J. Muthurajan and another, representing the Jegatheesan group, challenging the rejection of their partition suit. Setting aside the orders of the trial court and the Madras High Court, which had rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, the Court held, “The grounds of coercion, undue influence and more importantly misrepresentation, resulting in an inequitable partition, cannot be peremptorily rejected while considering an application under Order VII, Rule 11 of the CPC.”
Case Title : C. Velusamy v. K. Indhera
Case Number : SLP (C) NO(S). 6551 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz SC 39
The Supreme Court on Tuesday (February 3) held that arbitral awards delivered beyond the statutory timeline prescribed under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, do not automatically become ineffective. The Court clarified that such awards remain ineffective and unenforceable at that stage but may still be given effect if a party approaches the competent court seeking an extension of the arbitral tribunal's mandate under Section 29A. “…we are of the opinion that provisions of the Act, particularly Section 29A, must not be interpreted to infer a threshold bar for an application under Section 29A(5) for extension of the mandate of the arbitrator even when an award is passed, though after the expiry of the mandate,” observed a Bench comprising Justices P.S. Narasimha and Atul S. Chandurkar.
Case Title : Eminent Colonizers Private Limited v. Rajasthan Housing Board & Ors.
Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL NO. 753 OF 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz SC 48
The Supreme Court on February 4th, reaffirmed that parties who accept a court order appointing an arbitrator under the pre-2015 arbitration regime cannot later challenge the existence or validity of the arbitration clause while assailing the arbitral award. The ruling was delivered by a bench comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K.V. Viswanathan. Under the law as it stood before the 2015 amendments, the Chief Justice or the designated judge exercising powers under Section 11 was required to undertake a judicial determination of jurisdictional issues, including whether a valid arbitration agreement existed. That determination, the court reiterated, attained finality under Section 11(7) and bound the parties through all subsequent stages of the dispute, including challenges under Section 34. The Court relied on the precedent in SBP & Co. v. Patel Engineering Ltd. (2005), which settled that once a Section 11 appointment is accepted, parties cannot later reopen questions surrounding the arbitration agreement's existence or validity before either the arbitral tribunal or the courts. As a result, the Supreme Court held that the lower courts had exceeded their jurisdiction by reopening issues already settled at the Section 11 stage. The court observed that the order appointing the arbitrator had attained finality and that, having accepted that order, the respondents were precluded from questioning the existence or validity of the arbitration agreement at the Section 34 stage.
Case Title : Rajia Begum vs Barnali Mukherjee
Case Number : SLP (C) NO.6013 OF 2021
Citation : 2026 LLBiz SC 36
The Supreme Court observed that disputes cannot be referred to arbitration when the very existence of the arbitration agreement is in question, particularly where the document relied upon is alleged to be forged. A bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe said courts must first satisfy themselves that an arbitration agreement actually exists before sending parties to arbitration. The court clarified that challenges going to the root of the arbitration clause itself take the dispute outside the arbitral process. It held, “Thus, in a case where plea is taken with regard to nonexistence of an arbitration clause or agreement, the same would amount to serious allegation of fraud and would render the subject matter of an agreement non-arbitrable.” Further, as the bench put it, “Where the arbitration agreement itself is alleged to be forged or fabricated, the disputes ceases to be merely contractual and strikes at the very root of arbitral jurisdiction.” Holding that the High Court had exceeded its supervisory powers by overturning concurrent findings of fact, the Supreme Court set aside the order referring the dispute to arbitration and upheld the refusal to appoint an arbitrator, leaving the matter to be decided by the civil court.
Case Title : BWL Limited (formerly Bhilai Wires Ltd.) v. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited
Case Number : SLP 6447/2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz SC 81
The Supreme Court on Friday refused to interfere with a Delhi High Court ruling declaring that a 2000 arbitral award in favour of BWL Limited against Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited stands satisfied, concluding the dispute between the parties over the computation of post-award interest.
Dismissing a Special Leave Petition, a bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe observed, “We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court.”
Rejecting the contention that post-award interest was payable on the pendente lite interest, the High Court held, “In my opinion, the Supreme Court did not modify the direction passed by the Division Bench directing payment of interest only on the principal amount. The only modification effected by the Supreme Court was in respect of the period for which the post-award interest was payable.”
Supreme Court Upholds Delhi HC Refusal To Recall Arbitrator In Vedanta–GSPC Gas Block Dispute
Case Title : VEDANTA LIMITED (CAIRN OIL AND GAS DIVISION) VERSUS GUJARAT STATE PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD.
Case Number : Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 5072/2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz SC 89
The Supreme Court on Tuesday dismissed special leave petitions in the dispute between Vedanta Ltd (Cairn Oil & Gas Division) and Gujarat State Petroleum Corporation Ltd (GSPC). The court refused to interfere with the Delhi High Court's order declining to recall its earlier Section 11 appointment of an arbitrator and rejecting a related modification plea.
Dismissing the petitions, a bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Manmohan observed, “We do not find a good ground to interfere with the impugned order/judgment in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the special leave petitions stand dismissed.”
Vedanta had also sought modification of the court's direction on arbitrator fees. That application was dismissed as well.
The January 23, 2026 order of the High Court was challenged before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court declined to interfere and dismissed the petitions.
Case Title : Union of India & Ors. v. Larsen & Toubro Limited
Case Number : Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 14989 of 2023
Citation : 2026 LLBiz SC 97
The Supreme Court on Friday held that an arbitral tribunal cannot award pre-award or pendente lite interest when the contract expressly bars payment of interest, even if such amounts are granted in the guise of compensation.
A Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi ruled that “The provisions of the Act of 1996, including provisions contained in Section 31(7)(a) give paramount importance to the contract entered into between the parties and categorically restrict the power of an arbitrator to award pre-award/pendente lite interest when the parties have themselves agreed to the contrary."
The Court held, “Pre-award and post-award interest operate in distinct fields and a contractual bar applicable to the former cannot, by implication, be extended to the latter, and thus, any exclusion of post-award interest must be explicit and unambiguous.”
Case Title : Vedanta Limited vs Sunflag Iron & Steel Company Limited
Case Number : Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 7569/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 100
The Supreme Court recently declined to interfere with a judgment of the Bombay High Court dismissing Vedanta Ltd's writ petition challenging an arbitral order in its dispute with Sunflag Iron & Steel Co. Ltd over the purchase and supply of LAM Coke. The court also imposed costs of Rs 5 lakh on the company.
A Bench of Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Alok Aradhe dismissed Vedanta's special leave petition, observing:
“We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court. The special leave petition is, however, dismissed with costs quantified at Rs 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five lakhs) which shall be paid to 'Supreme Court Advocate-on-Record Association (SCAORA)' within two weeks from today.”
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.”
Case Title : MSA Global LLC (Oman) v. Engineering Projects (India) Limited
Case Number : Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 7545 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 124
The Supreme Court has held that the primary ground for restraining MSA Global LLC (Oman) from continuing arbitration proceedings against Engineering Projects (India) Limited ceased to exist after arbitral tribunal member Andre Yeap resigned, whose alleged non-disclosure had formed the basis of the anti-arbitration injunction. Accordingly, setting aside the Delhi High Court's decision dated December 12, 2025, the Supreme Court restored the appeal to the Division Bench for fresh consideration. A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi held that: “It appears to us that since the primary reason for injuncting the appellant from pursuing his anti-arbitration suit seems to have vanished, the validity of the order dated 25.07.2025 of the learned Single Judge can be re-examined by the Division Bench of the High Court.”
Case Title : ABS Marine Services vs The Andaman and Nicobar Administration
Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 3658-3659 of 2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 127
The Supreme Court expressed shock at the stand taken by the Andaman and Nicobar Administration that a contractual clause made its decision final and beyond challenge, holding that such a term offended the rule of law. The court made the observationwhile setting aside a July 11, 2018 judgment of the Calcutta High Court and restoring an arbitral award of Rs 2.87 crore in favour of ABS Marine Services. A bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K.V. Viswanathan observed: “It is shocking that the respondent administration with all seriousness at their command contend that under Clause 3.20 not only have they a right to decide wilfulness or neglect on the part of the manning agent in cases where liability is disputed, but also that such decision cannot be challenged in any court of law or before the arbitrator. We reject the contentions, since we have held the dispute to be within the jurisdiction of the arbitrator.”
Case Title : Nagaraj V. Mylandla & Anr. v. PI Opportunities Fund-I & Ors.
Case Number : Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 31866–68 of 2025 and 31945–31947 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 132
The Supreme Court of India held that enforcement of foreign arbitral awards cannot be resisted under Section 48 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, on a party's plea re-characterizing factual disputes as issues of public policy, particularly as courts cannot re-examine awards on merits at the enforcement stage. A Division Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Vinod Chandran dismissed Special Leave Petitions filed by Nagaraj V. Mylandla and Sharada Mylandla against enforcement of a Singapore-seated arbitral award directing payment of Rs 6,614 million to PI Opportunities Fund-I, Rs 2,804 million to Millenna FVCI Limited, Rs 777 million to NYLIM I and Rs 1,093 million to NYLIM II. “By giving a different colour to a factual issue, it is not open to a party to the foreign award to seek to bring it within the ambit of Section 48(2)(b) of the Arbitration Act by raising a' public policy' ground. The doctrine of 'transnational issue estoppel' would bar the same," it observed.
Case Title : JioStar India Pvt Ltd vs Green Bean Sports Marketing
Case Number : Petition(s) for Arbitration No(s). 16/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 123
The Supreme Court issued notice in an arbitration petition filed by Jiostar India Pvt. Ltd. seeking appointment of an arbitrator in a dispute with UAE-based Green Bean Sports Marketing arising out of a media rights sub-licence agreement relating to the Indian Premier League (IPL) for the territory of Bangladesh. A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi, after hearing counsel, directed issuance of notice returnable on May 15, 2026.
Case Title : Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai v. M/s R.V. Anderson Associates Ltd.
Case Number : SLP (C) Nos. 23846–23847 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 106
The Supreme Court on Wednesday observed that a party's conduct during arbitration is the clearest indicator of how it understood the arbitration agreement, and cannot later adopt a contrary interpretation to challenge the tribunal after an unfavourable award, while upholding an arbitral award against the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM).
A Division Bench of Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Atul S. Chandurkar dismissed MCGM's challenge to an arbitral award passed in favour of R.V. Anderson Associates Ltd., observing that the manner in which parties act upon a contract is the best guide to interpreting its terms.
“A party cannot keep a 'jurisdictional ace' up their sleeve and then claim that filing of the jurisdictional challenge under Section 16 would go back in time and wipe out the past conduct and acquiescence of the party which would clearly evince how the contractual terms were viewed by the parties. If the same is permitted, it will erode the basic principles of alternative dispute resolution and ethos of arbitration,” the bench observed.
Supreme Court Refuses To Interfere With Arbitrator Appointment In Gini & Jony–Benetton Dispute
Case Title : Gini AND Jony Ltd v. Benetton India Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : SLP (C) 10279 OF 2026
CITATION: 2026 LLBiz SC 133
The Supreme Court dismissed a Special Leave Petition filed by Gini & Jony Ltd. challenging the Delhi High Court's order appointing an arbitrator in its dispute with Benetton India Pvt. Ltd. arising from a distribution agreement for sale of United Colors of Benetton apparel products, involving an unpaid amount of about Rs 91 lakh. After hearing the parties, Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Atul S. Chandurkar dismissed the special leave petition and said: “After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners, we are not inclined to entertain the present SLP and to interfere with the order passed by the High Court.”
Case Title: Bharat Udyog Ltd. (formerly known as M/s Jai Hind Contractors Pvt. Ltd.) v. Ambernath Municipal Council through Commissioner & Anr.,
Case Number: Special Leave Petition (C) No. 1127 of 2017
Citation: 2026 LLBiz SC 129
The Supreme Court dismissed a special leave petition filed by Bharat Udyog Ltd, holding that the State Government had no authority under Section 143-A(3) of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965, which deals with issuance of policy directions regarding the levy and collection of octroi, to appoint an arbitrator between a Municipal Council and its agent. A bench of Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Alok Aradhe observed: “State Government has no authority under Section 143-A(3) of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 to appoint an arbitrator for the agent and the Municipal Council. The exercise of such power by the government cannot be equated to Section 4 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, for there is no such agreement.”
Case Title MCM Worldwide Private Limited v. M/s. Construction Industry Development Council
Case Number Civil Appeal (arising out of SLP (C) No. 33075 of 2025)
Citation 2026 LLBiz SC 171
The Supreme Court has recently held that when a claim is challenged as time-barred to question an arbitrator's jurisdiction, and the arbitrator rejects that objection, the party cannot challenge it midway and must wait until the final award.
A Division Bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and K. Vinod Chandran observed that
"In that situation, there is no option for the party aggrieved by the decision of the arbitrator upon the application filed under Section 16 except to wait till the conclusion of the arbitral proceedings and then raise that issue by way of an application under Section 34 against the final award."
Supreme Court Stays Arbitration In ₹36.53 Crore AP E-Challan Dispute Involving Digi Yatra Developer
Case Title : The State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. M/s Dataevolve Solutions Pvt Limited
Case Number : Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No. 9572/2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz SC 169
The Supreme Court recently stayed further arbitration proceedings in a Rs. 36.53 crore dispute between the Andhra Pradesh government and Dataevolve Solutions Pvt. Ltd., the developer of the Digi Yatra app, over settlement of accounts under an e-challan software contract.
A Bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant and comprising Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi issued notice on the State's special leave petition challenging the Andhra Pradesh High Court's order appointing a sole arbitrator, as well as on its applications seeking condonation of delay. The Court directed that further arbitration proceedings shall remain stayed and listed the matter for May 25, 2026.
Case Title : M/S PARAMOUNT LEARNING SOLUTIONS AND ORS. Versus AAKASH EDUCATIONAL SERVICES LTD.
Case Number : Diary No. 22100-2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz SC 173
The Supreme Court of India on Tuesday dismissed a plea by Paramount Learning Solutions in a franchise dispute involving an Aakash Educational Services Ltd. coaching centre.
It declined to interfere with the Delhi High Court's judgment of August 7, 2025, which had upheld an arbitral award in favour of Aakash.
A Bench of Justices P.S. Narasimha and Alok Aradhe declined to interfere with the High Court's ruling. The High Court had affirmed an arbitral award relating to the operation of an Aakash coaching centre at Pathankot. It directed Paramount Learning Solutions to pay about Rs. 66.31 lakh to Aakash.
Legal Representatives Have Right To Challenge Arbitral Awards That Bind Them: Supreme Court
Case Title : V.K. John S. Mukanchand Bothra and HUF (Died) Represented By Lrs. & Ors.
Case Number : SLP (C) 16162 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 163
The Supreme Court on Monday held that if an arbitral award can be enforced against the legal representatives of a deceased party, they must also have the right to challenge it under the law, holding that such representatives “step into the shoes” of the deceased for the purposes of arbitral proceedings. A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Vipul M. Pancholi observed that the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is a self-contained code and emphasises continuity of arbitral proceedings, particularly in situations where a party dies during the process.
“In our view, when the scheme of the Act is towards continuity of arbitral proceedings, in the event of death of a party, the natural corollary, evident from the definition clause itself, is that upon the death of a party, legal representatives' step into the shoes of a party for the purposes of the Act,” the court said.
Unsuccessful Party Can Seek Interim Relief Under Arbitration Act: Supreme Court
Case Title : Home Care Retail Marts Pvt. Ltd. vs. Haresh N. Sanghavi
Case Number : Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 29972/2015, 26876/2014 & 11139/2020
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 168
The Supreme Court of India on Friday held that any party to an arbitration agreement, including one that has been unsuccessful in arbitral proceedings and has no enforceable award in its favour, is entitled to seek interim relief under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. It clarified that such relief can be sought at the post-award stage but before enforcement. A Bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Manoj Misra observed that “Section 9 of the Act commences with the expression 'a party', which, by virtue of Section 2(h) of the Act, is defined as 'a party to an arbitration agreement'. Neither Section 2(h) nor Section 9 of the Act draws any distinction between a successful and an unsuccessful party in arbitration proceedings.”
Case Title : VPS Healthcare Private Limited & Anr v. Prabhat Kumar Srivastava & Anr
Case Number : Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 23869 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 150
The Supreme Court on Monday held that obligations undertaken by promoters of Rockland Hospitals (now Medeor Hospitals) under a consent arbitral award are immediately enforceable and cannot be deferred until confirmation by the highest court of appeal. Setting aside the Delhi High Court's judgment, the Court termed its interpretation “paradoxical” for deferring the promoters' liability until confirmation by the 'Highest Court of Appeal'.
A Bench of Justices S.V.N. Bhatti and Prasanna B. Varale held that such an interpretation would render the undertaking under the consent award a nullity, which “cannot be the intention of the parties”. “The High Court's interpretation produces a paradox. If liability is payable only after confirmation by the Supreme Court, the Promoters can choose not to pursue the appeal to the Supreme Court, so no liability is confirmed against the Promoters. This would render the undertaking under Paragraph 32(a) meaningless. Nullity cannot be the intention of the parties to the Consent Award”, the court observed.
Case Title : J&K Economic Reconstruction Agency v. Rash Builders India Private Limited
Case Number : 2026 INSC 368
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 155
The Supreme Court of India has set aside an order of the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court which had declined to hear a challenge to an arbitral award on the ground that it was delivered in New Delhi, holding that jurisdiction lies with courts at the seat of arbitration and cannot shift based on where proceedings are conducted or the award is rendered. A Bench of Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Alok Aradhe said, “The mere fact that arbitral proceedings are conducted or the award is rendered at a particular place does not confer jurisdiction on courts of that place if it is different from the designated seat. The seat remains fixed unless expressly altered by agreement of the parties.”
Case Title : Nagreeeka Indcon Products Pvt. Ltd. v. Cargocare Logistics (India) Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 19026 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 158
The Supreme Court on Friday held that an arbitration clause using the word “can” does not make arbitration mandatory, ruling that parties cannot be compelled to arbitrate unless there is a clear and binding agreement to that effect under Section 7 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. A Division Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh held that the clause in question only indicates a possibility of arbitration and not a binding obligation.
“The clause subject matter of dispute in this appeal indicates merely the future possibility of referring disputes to arbitration and as such, it cannot be said to be a binding arbitration agreement. In other words, the possibility of arbitration being used to settle disputes is open however, for the disputes to be settled by arbitration, further agreement between the parties would be required and needless to add, such an agreement can only come into existence when both parties agree to the same. In that view of the matter, we are of the considered view that this appeal is bereft of merit,” the Court observed.
Case Title : MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED (MSEDCL) & ORS. VS R Z MALPANI
Case Number : SLP (C) No. 36889 OF 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 149
The Supreme Court on Thursday held that courts may refuse to refer parties to arbitration at the Section 11 stage in the rarest of rare cases where, even on a prima facie view, no arbitration agreement exists, carving out a narrow exception to the principle of minimal judicial interference.
Clarifying that judicial scrutiny at the stage of appointing arbitrators is otherwise limited to examining the prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement and that courts should follow the principle of “when in doubt, do refer”, a bench of Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Atul S. Chandurkar observed:
“It goes without saying that the scope of inquiry at the stage of Section 11 is extremely limited and only pertains to an examination about prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement. Judicial non-interference in the arbitration process is the sacrosanct principle which guides alternative dispute resolution and Courts must be highly circumspect in interfering at the referral stage, especially since there is no appeal available in the 1996 Act against an order under Section 11. The Arbitral Tribunal, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 16 must be left to decide on its jurisdiction. The Courts should follow the principle of 'When in doubt, do refer' and lean towards referring matters to arbitration when the arbitration agreement is prima facie existent.”
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.”
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.
Case Title: National Highways Authority of India vs T Younis & Anr.
Case Number: SLP (C) NO. 7570 OF 2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz SC 216
The Supreme Court on Tuesday held that when parties invoke post-award proceedings before an arbitral tribunal seeking correction, interpretation, or an additional award, the limitation period for challenging the arbitral award begins only after those proceedings are disposed of.
The court observed that parties cannot be compelled to challenge an award while such proceedings remain pending before the tribunal.
A bench of Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Alok Aradhe allowed an appeal filed by the National Highway Authority of India (NHAI) and set aside a January 22, 2024 judgment of the Karnataka High Court.
It restored an August 5, 2023 order of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ballari, which had condoned the delay in filing NHAI's challenge to an arbitral award.
The bench ruled, “Once proceedings under Section 33 are initiated and entertained by the Arbitral Tribunal, the award remains subject to the limited jurisdiction of the tribunal for correction, interpretation, or supplementation as contemplated under the provision. So long as such proceedings remain pending, the parties cannot be compelled to institute proceedings under Section 34 merely as a matter of abundant caution. The parties can effectively pursue their remedy under Section 34 only upon conclusion of the proceedings under Section 33. Consequently, the limitation prescribed under Section 34(3) can start only from the date on which the proceedings under Section 33 are disposed of.”
Case Title : T.K.A. Padmanabhan v. Abhiyan Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd., Through Its Secretary
Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 10724 of 2016
Citation : 2026 LLBiz SC 229
The Supreme Court has held that a consumer who has invoked the Consumer Protection Act cannot be forced into arbitration merely because the underlying agreement contains an arbitration clause.
It restored a homebuyer's complaint alleging delayed possession of a flat for adjudication on merits before a consumer forum.
A Division Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and V. Mohana set aside orders of the consumer fora that had referred the dispute between T.K.A. Padmanabhan and Abhiyan Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd. to arbitration.
"The 1986 Act creates a special adjudicatory mechanism for consumer disputes. Once that mechanism is validly invoked and the complaint is admitted, the consumer cannot be driven out of that forum merely because the agreement between the parties contains an arbitration clause. A private contractual clause cannot be permitted to defeat the continued operation of a statutory remedy which Parliament has expressly made additional to other remedies under Section 3 of the 1986 Act," the court observed.
Case Title : Ashok and Ors. v. Padam Chand and Ors.
Case Number: Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 18146 of 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz SC 211
The Supreme Court on Friday held that under the now-repealed Arbitration Act, 1940, parties to a pending civil suit could not validly refer their dispute to arbitration without jointly approaching the court where the suit was pending for a reference.
The court consequently decreed a suit for possession and mesne profits concerning a property in Gwalior and set aside a Madhya Pradesh High Court judgment that had upheld dismissal of the suit.
A bench of Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Atul S. Chandurkar allowed an appeal filed by the legal heirs of Haridas, who had purchased the disputed property in a court auction. The appeal was directed against Padam Chand and his family members, who claimed rights over portions of the property.
On the requirement of obtaining a court reference while a suit was pending, the Court observed:
“Therefore, for any valid arbitration referral between the parties during pendency of the 1982 Suit, both the parties had to agree and apply before the Court where the 1982 Suit was pending, which admittedly is not the case herein. In light of foregoing discussion, it is luculent that once a suit was pending between the parties, only option available for referring the matter to arbitration was by way of application under Section 21 of the 1940 Act. Any other route either under Chapter II or Chapter III of the 1940 Act would be improper.”
Arbitration In India Has Not Failed, Courts Sometimes Have Failed Arbitration: Supreme Court
Case Title: Madhya Pradesh Road Development Corporation Ltd. v. M/s Jabalpur Corridor Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 10877 of 2018
Citation: 2026 LLBiz SC 210
The Supreme Court on Friday remarked that “Arbitration in India has not failed; however, Courts sometimes have failed arbitration in India,” while dismissing Madhya Pradesh Road Development Corporation Ltd.'s (MPRDC) challenge to an arbitral award that had already survived multiple rounds of judicial scrutiny over nearly 12 years.
A Bench of Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar made the observation while refusing to interfere with an arbitral award in favour of Jabalpur Corridor Pvt. Ltd. (JCPL). The Court also rejected MPRDC's attempt to revive a jurisdictional objection that had attained finality in earlier proceedings.
“A single doubtful precedent in the arbitration field has the potential to cast a shadow on its viability in India and its impact on the ease of doing business in India. There is no gainsaying that judicial interference in alternative dispute resolution has often been a cure without a disease in India. In this context, it is high time that judges realize that certainty, uniformity, and finality are also cherished values.”
Case Title : Tarini Prasad Mohanty v. M/s Sunflag Iron and Steel Company Limited
Case Number: Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 27534 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz SC 206
The Supreme Court on Wednesday held that non-stamping or insufficient stamping of an agreement does not invalidate it and that the arbitral tribunal must decide such objections in the first instance, discouraging High Court interference in ongoing arbitration proceedings.
A bench of Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar held “The agreement survives non-stamping or insufficient stamping, and the defect can be cured by getting the agreement sufficiently stamped at any stage, whereupon it becomes admissible in the eyes of law. It is the arbitral tribunal that is empowered to deal with this issue in the first instance.”
The bench added, “The remedy of having the Tribunal satisfy itself on the question of stamping under Section 16, with the award remaining open to challenge at a later stage, is not inadequate.”
Supreme Court Refuses To Set Aside “Patently Illegal” Arbitral Award, Modifies Relief Instead
Case Title : Bhupesh Bhayana and Another v. Kunal Seth and Another
Case Number : C.A. No. 008192-008193/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz SC 205
The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to set aside an arbitral award despite finding it to be patently illegal, choosing instead to modify the award itself to bring finality to a dispute that has been pending since 2012.
A Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran observed that sending the parties back into fresh litigation would cause further hardship and delay.
“Though the award, being patently illegal, deserves to be set aside under Section 34(2A) of the Arbitration Act, we are of the opinion that doing so would not be in the interest of justice, given the fact that the parties have been litigating since the year 2012. Setting aside the award at this stage would mean that they would again have to start afresh..”
The Court instead recalculated the parties' mutual entitlements and directed the owners' side to pay ₹25.62 lakh to the builder's legal heirs.
Case Title : Gujarat Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. Saryu Plastics Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number: Civil Appeal Nos. 769-770 of 2026
Citation :2026 LLBiz SC 203
The Supreme Court on Tuesday reiterated that the limited power to correct clerical, computational, or typographical errors in an arbitral award cannot be used to substantially modify it by replacing simple interest with compound interest.
Setting aside Gujarat High Court and Commercial Court orders, the Court held that Saryu Plastics Pvt. Ltd. was entitled only to simple interest at 21.675% during the pendency of arbitration, reversing a modification that had increased Gujarat Water Supply and Sewerage Board's liability from about ₹30.38 crore to ₹144.93 crore.
A Division Bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe held that the corrective power available in arbitral proceedings cannot be converted into a mechanism for revisiting the merits of an award.
Explaining why the Commercial Court could not substitute simple interest with compound interest, the Bench observed:
“Section 33(1)(a) of the Act confers upon the arbitral Tribunal the limited power to correct any computational, clerical, or typographical errors in an Award. The provision is neither designed nor intended to serve as a vehicle for the substantive modification of an Award or the review of the merits of the findings recorded therein.,” the bench observed.
Supreme Court Asks Delhi HC To Dispose Patanjali-Ashav Arbitration Dispute Over Ruchi Soya Deal
Case Title: PATANJALI AYURVED LIMITED AND ORS. Versus ASHAV ADVISORY LLP
Case Number: Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 17525/2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz SC 196
The Supreme Court recently asked the Delhi High Court to take up for disposal the pending arbitration dispute between Patanjali Ayurved Ltd and Ashav Advisory LLP over a share transaction linked to the acquisition of Ruchi Soya Industries.
A Bench of Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Alok Aradhe requested the High Court to decide the pending petitions at the next date of hearing, scheduled for July 28.
“We had earlier recorded in our order dated 07.01.2026 that Section 34 objections were listed for hearing on 11.02.2026. It appears that the matter could be taken up for one reason or the another. Mr. C.A. Sundaram, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner(s) submits that petition under Section 36 of the Act is also pending consideration before the High Court. We request the High Court to take up Section 34/36 petitions for disposal on the next date of hearing which is scheduled for 28.07.2026,” the bench observed.
Case Title: Hirani Developers v. Nehru Nagar Samruddhi CHS Ltd. and Another Etc.
Case Number : SLP (C) Nos. 38407-38411 of 2025
Citation :2026 LLBiz SC 188
The Supreme Court has recently referred a redevelopment dispute between a developer and five members of a co-operative housing society to arbitration, holding that an arbitration clause in an earlier development agreement became binding through later accommodation agreements that adopted all its terms.
"This was, thus, not a case of mere reference to an earlier agreement but a case where the parties to the later contract clearly intended to import the Development Agreement, body and soul, into the later agreements," the Court held.
A Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran set aside a Bombay High Court order that had refused to appoint an arbitrator, holding that the later agreements clearly incorporated the arbitration clause contained in the original development agreement.
Case Title: Ram Avatar Agrawal Road Construction Private Limited Now Known As SPA Paving Projects Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Chhattisgarh
Case Number : Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 15430 of 2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz SC 187
The Supreme Court has recently held that where a court has already conclusively ruled in proceedings under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 that arbitration is maintainable and that finding has attained finality, the issue cannot be reopened later in a Section 37 challenge to the arbitral award.
“When the Courts have ruled on the fact that application under Section 11 of the Act was maintainable and when such a decision has attained finality, revisiting the issue of maintainability and setting aside the award on the ground of jurisdictional error is incorrect.”, the top court ruled.
Applying the principle of res judicata, Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe set aside a judgment of the Chhattisgarh High Court which had invalidated the arbitral proceedings by reopening the issue of maintainability despite earlier judicial orders, including the Supreme Court's 2008 decision.
“The conclusion of the High Court that the earlier judgments are not res judicata is not correct in our opinion.”, it noted.
Supreme Court Appoints Arbitrator In Ucon-Utracon Dispute Over 'Utracon' Brand Use, Share Sale Pact
Case Title : M/S UCON PT STRUCTURAL SYSTEM PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR. vs UTRACON CORPORATION PTE LTD. & ORS.
Case Number : ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 13 OF 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz SC 184
The Supreme Court on April 30 appointed former Punjab and Haryana High Court judge Justice K. Kannan as sole arbitrator to resolve a dispute between Chennai-based Ucon PT Structural System Pvt. Ltd. and Singapore-based Utracon entities over an alleged breach of a 2012 share sale agreement.
A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi said objections relating to limitation, arbitrability, and the scope of the arbitration clause would be decided by the arbitral tribunal, not at the stage of appointing an arbitrator.
“Keeping in view the above facts and circumstances and the relevant provisions under the subject agreement, especially the fact that the arbitration is to take place in Chennai, India and that it would be procedurally governed by the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, we deem it just and proper to appoint an arbitrator of Indian origin. Hence, the instant Arbitration Petition is allowed, and Justice K. Kannan, former Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, is appointed as the sole arbitrator to resolve the disputes between the parties.
Case Title : Elecon Engineering Company Limited Versus Bhartiya Rail Bijlee Company Limited & Anr.
Case Number: Special Leave Petition (C) No.33128 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz SC 181
The Supreme Court has held that a collaborator whose technical expertise was essential for a contractor to qualify for a project bid can invoke the arbitration clause in the principal contract.This would apply where the collaborator's role makes it effectively a party to the agreement.
“The meetings convened between the Employer, the Contractor and the Collaborator, after delay in execution of the contract, the tripartite agreement entered into between them and the further communications addressed to the collaborator to take up his responsibility as per the DJU makes the Collaborator a veritable party to the contract who is also entitled to invoke the arbitration clause as available in the contract between the Contractor and the Employer in which the DJU executed by the Collaborator and the Contractor, in favour of the Employer is an inextricable part.”, it held.
High Courts
Delhi High Court
Case Title : M/s Ramacivil India Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. Central Public Works Department
Case Number : O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 447/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 77
The Delhi High Court recently allowed IIM Jammu to be impleaded in arbitration-related proceedings over the construction of its permanent campus at Jagti, despite the institute not being a signatory to the arbitration agreement. The order, pronounced by Joint Registrar Deepak Dabas, held that the institute is a necessary party because it is the ultimate beneficiary of the premises and of all acts or omissions of the contractor. He held, "I am of the considered view that IIM Jammu is entitled of being impleaded as a party in the present matter as the premises in question have been constructed for applicant/IIM Jammu. IIM Jammu is beneficiary of the premises in question and all the payment for construction of premises has been made/is to be made by IIM Jammu. IIM Jammu is the ultimate beneficiary/sufferer of all the acts/omissions of petitioner,".
Mere Conduct Of Arbitration Under DIAC, By Itself, Doesn't Make Delhi The Seat: Delhi High Court
Case Title : Arun Mehrotra v. Kishan Lal
Case Number : FAO(COMM.) 123/2023
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 85
The Delhi High Court on Tuesday set aside a district court order that refused to hear a challenge to an arbitral award. It held that arbitration conducted under the aegis of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre does not, by itself, make Delhi the seat of arbitration. The Court said that where no seat is expressly designated, courts where a part of the cause of action arises can exercise jurisdiction. Once a competent court is approached first, Section 42 requires that all further court proceedings arising from the same arbitration be heard by that court alone. A Division Bench of Justice Anil Kshetrapal and Justice Amit Mahajan said courts often confuse the seat of arbitration with the venue of hearings.
The Bench said the seat is the juridical centre of the arbitral proceedings. It determines which court exercises supervisory jurisdiction. The venue, by contrast, is only the place where hearings are held for convenience. “The two concepts are distinct and cannot be used interchangeably,” the Court observed. It added that merely because arbitral proceedings are conducted at a particular place does not, by itself, confer exclusive jurisdiction on courts there.
Case Title : Vedanta Limited v. Gujarat State Petroleum Corporation Ltd.
Case Number : I.A. 25230/2025 & I.A. 25279/2025 in ARB.P. 853/2023
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 88
The Delhi High Court has rejected Gujarat State Petroleum Corporation Ltd.'s claim that it lacked jurisdiction to appoint an arbitrator in its dispute with Vedanta Limited, after GSPC argued that a foreign joint venture partner had been deliberately left out of the proceedings. Justice Subramonium Prasad held that the jurisdictional objection, which was raised through a recall application, could not be examined at this stage because the arbitral tribunal is still considering whether Vedanta's joint venture partners, including Cairn Energy Hydrocarbons Limited and ONGC, are necessary parties to the arbitration.
It held that “In case the learned Arbitral Tribunal rejects the said Application, then the entire issue that is now sought to be raised before this Court becomes redundant. Therefore, the present Application, at this juncture, seems to be premature.” “Without the consent of the Respondent, this Court will not have the jurisdiction to alter Paragraph No.33 of the Judgment dated 28.07.2025. The Respondent is correct in stating that it cannot be said that there is any error apparent on the face of the record in the Judgment dated 28.07.2025,” Justice Prasad held.
Case Title : IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Unison Hotels Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : O.M.P. (COMM) 197/2023
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 101
The Delhi High Court on Friday set aside an arbitral award arising out of an insurance dispute between IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Limited and Unison Hotels Private Limited, holding that the tribunal's two-year delay in pronouncing the award after reserving it had vitiated its findings. The case was heard by a Single Judge Bench of Justice Avneesh Jhingan. The court reiterated that the object of arbitration is speedy dispute resolution. It also observed that “it is trite law that the justice should not only be done but should also appear to have been done.”
“Inordinate delay jolts the confidence of the parties as to whether the submissions were effectively weighed”, the court observed. Holding that the prolonged delay had impacted the tribunal's consideration of the jurisdictional objection and rendered the award patently illegal and unsustainable, the High Court allowed the petition and set aside the arbitral award dated March 6, 2023.
Delhi High Court Allows NHPC To Pursue Delayed Challenge To Parbati Project Arbitral Award
Case Title : NHPC Limited v. Chairman-Cum-Managing Director, M/S Patel-L&T Consortium-Parbati HE Project Stage-III
Case Number : I.A. 1707/2020 & I.A. 7844/2022 IN O.M.P. (COMM) 338/2020
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 90
The Delhi High Court has allowed NHPC Limited to pursue a delayed challenge to an arbitral award arising from works executed for the Parbati Hydroelectric Project, after accepting its explanation for the time spent litigating before courts later found to lack territorial jurisdiction. Justice Subramonium Prasad noted that NHPC approached the Delhi High Court within 30 days of the Supreme Court settling the jurisdiction question. The court also took into account that NHPC first had to obtain the return of its papers from the Commercial Court at Gurugram and then refile them in the format required in Delhi.
“In view of these facts, it cannot be said that the Petitioner was not active in pursuing the matter,” the court said. After the Supreme Court's ruling, NHPC refiled its petition before the Delhi High Court and sought exclusion of the time spent before the Faridabad and Gurugram courts. Accepting that NHPC had pursued the proceedings diligently and in good faith, the High Court allowed the application, permitting the challenge to proceed.
Delhi High Court Moves Interim Relief Plea From Court To Arbitration Forum After Parties Consent
Case Title : IPEX Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. Krishna Constructions & Ors.
Case Number : O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 492/2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 103
The Delhi High Court has moved a plea for interim relief out of the courtroom and into arbitration after the parties agreed that their dispute should be resolved through arbitration. Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar was hearing a petition arising from a Memorandum of Understanding dated 3 November 2025 between IPEX Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and Krishna Constructions, in which interim protection was sought. Upon the parties' consent, the Court referred the dispute to arbitration and appointed Senior Advocate Vibha Mahajan Seth, empanelled with the Delhi International Arbitration Centre, as the sole arbitrator. The arbitration will be conducted under the center's rules.
Case Title : National Highways Authority of India v. Kochi Aroor Tollways Pvt Ltd
Case Number : O.M.P. (COMM) 170/2019
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 100
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a challenge by the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) against an arbitral award granted to Kochi Aroor Tollways Private Limited (KATPL), upholding a compensation amount of approximately ₹12.18 crores. The award addressed losses KATPL sustained on the Edapally–Vyttila–Aroor road stretch in Kerala, specifically due to incorrectly fixed toll rates, delays in declaring the Commercial Operation Date, and the costs associated with issuing free monthly passes to locals.
The Court observed that the "Arbitral Tribunal has correctly come to the conclusion that the user fee rates notified by NHAI were not in accordance with the provisions of the Concession Agreement read with 2008 Rules and the Amendment Rules of 2011. Hence, Arbitral Tribunal worked out the user fee rates in accordance with the Concession Agreement. The finding of the Arbitral Tribunal is based on the contractual framework between the parties read with the relevant Rules and does not disclose any perversity or patent illegality".
Arbitral Tribunal Is A 'Creature of Contract': Delhi High Court Upholds ₹25 Lakh Award To Carlsberg
Case Title : Pali Hills Breweries Private Limited v. Carlsberg India Private Limited
Case Number : O.M.P. (COMM) 595/2020, I.A. 12441/2020, I.A. 12442/2020, I.A. 12443/2020, I.A. 1083/2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 68
The Delhi High Court has upheld an arbitral award directing Pali Hills Breweries Pvt. Ltd. to pay Rs 25 lakh to Carlsberg India Private Limited under a brewing contract, while partly allowing the company's challenge by setting aside the arbitrator's rejection of its storage-rent claim. The court held that the amount was a genuine estimate of loss agreed to by the parties. Justice Jasmeet Singh said the High Court could not step in to re-decide the dispute or re-examine the evidence. He said the court's role is limited and it cannot sit as an appeal court over an arbitral tribunal.
The court noted that the arbitral tribunal gets its authority from the contract signed by the parties and must decide the dispute within the limits of that contract. “The Tribunal is a creature of contract and is bound by the circumscribing limits of the terms of the Contract. It is upon the Tribunal to interpret the terms of the contract. The Tribunal, in the present case, has interpreted the amount of Rs. 25 lakhs as reasonable compensation,” the court said.
Delhi High Court Sets Aside Arbitration Against Bhushan Steel Following Tata Steel Takeover
Case Title: Tata Steel Limited v. Ministry of Corporate Affairs & Anr.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 10431/2020 & CM APPL. 33016/2020
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 32
The Delhi High Court set aside an arbitral tribunal order that allowed arbitration to continue against Tata Steel, formerly Bhushan Steel, even after its resolution plan under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code was approved. A single-judge bench of Justice Amit Sharma allowed Tata Steel's writ petition and quashed the tribunal's October 7, 2020 order. The court said that once a resolution plan is approved, it binds all creditors.
“The Resolution Plan had attained finality and would be binding in terms of Section 31(1) of the IBC,” the court said. Allowing arbitration on such claims, the court said, would undermine the IBC's objective of giving the successful resolution applicant a clean or “fresh slate.” The court noted that the resolution plan had specifically dealt with sub judice and contingent claims and assigned them a liquidation value of nil. Calling the arbitral tribunal's decision to continue the proceedings “patently illegal,” the court said the treatment of claims falls within the commercial wisdom of the committee of creditors and cannot be reopened.
Case Title: Black Gold Resources Private Limitada v. International Coal Ventures Pvt. Ltd & Anr
Case Number: O.M.P. (I) (COMM) 78/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 41
The Delhi High Court has reiterated that an unconditional performance bank guarantee can be invoked even if the contractor disputes the legality of the contract's termination, an issue the court said must be decided in arbitration. A single-judge bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh relied on precedents set by the apex court to hold that it cannot go into such questions while deciding a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The Court clarified that it cannot go into the legality of termination at the interim stage. “This Court today in a Section 9 petition cannot adjudicate whether the termination of the Contract was right or wrong or whether the respondent No. 2 was entitled to recover the overburden charges already paid, as such issues touch the merit of the matter and are for the Arbitral Tribunal to decide,” Justice Singh observed.
Case Title: Om Prakash v. Smt Laxmi Maurya
Case Number: FAO (COMM) 57/2023, CM APPL. 11061/2023, CM APPL. 11062/2023
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 54
The Delhi High Court has held that mere delay in pronouncement of an arbitral award does not by itself suffice to set it aside under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ("Arbitration Act") unless the delay is undue, unexplained and demonstrably prejudicial to the parties. The Delhi High Court has held that a delay in the pronouncement of an arbitral award is not enough to set it aside, unless the delay is undue, unexplained and demonstrably prejudicial to the parties.
A Division Bench comprising of Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Amit Mahajan dismissed an appeal filed under section 37 of the Arbitration Act read with section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, thereby upholding an arbitral award directing repayment of a friendly loan along with interest. It further observed that the burden to prove repayment lay on the appellant who failed to produce any receipts or documentary evidence. On the objection regarding unregistered and insufficiently stamped mortgage deeds, the court observed that even assuming that the registration was mandatory, the documents could still be relied upon for collateral purposes under section 49 of the Registration Act.
Case Title: Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited v. Delkon India Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number: FAO (COMM) 109/2023
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 36
In a dispute involving public sector undertaking Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited, the Delhi High Court set aside a ₹66.50 lakh interest component of an arbitral award that had directed BHEL to pay Delkon India Private Limited. A division bench of Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Vinod Kumar ruled that the contractual bar on interest was binding and could not be bypassed by classifying claims as arising from termination rather than from the contract.
The bench observed that arbitral discretion to award interest operates subject to the agreement between the parties and that, once interest is expressly excluded, the arbitrator has no authority to grant it for the period before the award. At the same time, the court declined to interfere with the compensation awarded on Delkon's counterclaims. It reiterated that where loss is established but precise proof of the amount is difficult, an arbitrator is entitled to adopt a reasonable estimation method, provided the compensation is not arbitrary.
Case Title: National Highways Authority of India v. Roadway Solutions India Infra Limited
Case Number: FAO(OS) (COMM) 4/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 44
The Delhi High Court, while hearing an appeal under Section 37(1)(b), observed that an injunction granted by the Section 9 (power to grant interim measures) court ought not to have been granted. This injunction had restrained the National Highway Authorities of India (NHAI) from proceeding in furtherance of its notice of intention to terminate, dated 23.12.2025.
Section 37(1)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the Act), provides a right to appeal to the competent court against a court order that either grants or refuses to grant interim measures under Section 9 of the Act, which deals with interim relief during arbitration proceedings The bench further observed that Section 41 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, fetters the Court's power to grant an injunction, and Section 20A of the Act mandates that an injunction cannot be granted if it would delay the progress of an infrastructural development. The bench observed that the balance of convenience lies in favour of the nation and its citizen and therefore in NHAI, because the citizens cannot be deprived of a well-constructed highway to ensure smooth and free movement.
Case Title: JLT Energy 9 SAS v. Hindustan Cleanenergy Limited & Ors. and connected matters
Case Numbers: O.M.P.(I) (Comm.) 464/2025 and O.M.P.(I) (Comm.) 489/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 14
The Delhi High Court has refused to restrain Hindustan Cleanenergy Limited and its group companies from creating third-party rights in two solar power projects in Tamil Nadu and Bihar, holding that the share purchase agreements signed with a French investor had already come to an end on their own terms. Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, in an order dated January 6, 2026, said courts cannot use interim powers to keep a contract alive when the agreement itself provides for its termination When such a clause is triggered, unsigned emails and draft proposals cannot be used to suggest that the deal still survives.
“Effect must be given to the word 'automatic' as it appears in Clause 5.6. If contingencies and carve-outs were to be read between the stage of a CP(s) not being fulfilled on CLSD and that of termination of the said Agreement, the word “automatic” would lose its meaning", the court said.
“It would be unwise to rewrite the terms of the contract,” the court observed, adding that this was a commercial transaction deliberately structured to collapse if approvals were not obtained. Once the long stop date passed, the agreement had a built-in “self-collapsing mechanism,” and there was nothing left for the court to preserve.
'Full and Final' Settlement Does Not Bar Arbitration On Fresh Disputes: Delhi High Court Reiterates
Case Title : Ashutosh Infra Pvt. Ltd. v. Pebble Downtown India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Case Number : ARB.P. 1294/2023; O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 152/2023
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 55
The Delhi High Court has reiterated that a “full and final” settlement does not automatically bar arbitration if fresh disputes arise from the settlement's implementation and the parties have agreed to arbitrate such disputes. A single-judge bench of Justice Jyoti Singh ruled that an arbitration clause incorporated in a settlement agreement and reflected in a consent award constitutes a valid arbitration agreement under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The court clarified that “execution of a full and final settlement may not preclude a party from taking recourse to arbitration if a dispute arises from the settlement itself,” This is particularly where the parties have expressly agreed to resolve future disputes through arbitration.
Case Title : Prasar Bharati v. Stracon India Ltd & Anr.; Stracon India Ltd v. Prasar Bharati
Case Number : FAO(OS) (COMM) 132/2020 and FAO(OS) (COMM) 179/2020 (with connected applications)
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 75
The Delhi High Court has dismissed cross-appeals by Prasar Bharati and Stracon India Ltd, an overseas sports marketing company, upholding a single judge's ruling that only seven days of international cricket were missing under their BCCI broadcast marketing contract, and not seventeen as awarded by the arbitrator. A Division Bench of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Madhu Jain agreed with the Single Judge that the arbitrator had wrongly excluded a 10-day India–Australia–New Zealand Triangular Series while calculating the shortfall.
The Division Bench rejected both sides' challenges. It refused to accept Prasar Bharati's attempt to rely on definitions from its separate agreement with the BCCI. "Unlike the BCCI Agreement, the Global Rights Agreement did not define the term "Cricket Season". It did not even state that as the Agreement was being executed in the middle of a Cricket Season, there shall be a proportionate reduction of the number of days ofnInternational Cricket for the first season. The definition of Cricket Season from the BCCI Agreement therefore, cannot be imported into the Global Rights Agreement to modify the terms thereof,” the court said.
Delhi High Court Orders Perjury Complaint Against Walmark Officials In Fortis Arbitration Case
Case Title : Walmark Holdings Limited v. Fortis Healthcare Limited
Case Number : CRL.M.A. 11201/2020 in O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 170/2019
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 64
The Delhi High Court has directed its Registrar General to lodge a criminal complaint for perjury against two officials of Walmark Holdings Limited for making false statements and swearing affidavits before the court in an arbitration-related dispute with Fortis Healthcare Limited. The court held that this was a fit case to invoke its powers under the Criminal Procedure Code for making false statements and swearing affidavits.
The court held that this was a fit case to invoke its powers under the Criminal Procedure Code for making false statements and swearing affidavits. The case concerned a draft term sheet dated December 6th, 2017. Walmark relied on the document while seeking interim reliefs against Fortis in proceedings under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The High Court held that a case had been made out for invoking its jurisdiction under Section 340 of the Criminal Procedure Code. It directed the Registrar General to lodge a formal complaint before the concerned Judicial Magistrate within four weeks.
Delhi High Court Appoints Arbitrator After Earlier Plea Before UP Court Was Withdrawn
Case Title : Mr. Mohd. Khalid v. M/S Jai Mata Di Packaging Through Its Partners & Ors.
Case Number : ARB.P. 1115/2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 60
The Delhi High Court has recently allowed a plea to appoint an arbitrator in a dispute between partners of a firm, rejecting an objection that sought to block the case by relying on an earlier, abandoned court proceeding. Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar said the objection under Section 42 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act could not succeed because the earlier case filed in another court had been withdrawn without any decision. Section 42 is meant to prevent different courts from hearing the same arbitration dispute. It says that once one court has taken up the matter, other courts should not deal with it. The court clarified that this rule applies only when a court has actually taken up and dealt with the case.
“A withdrawn petition cannot be equated with a decided or pending application. To hold otherwise would be to confer upon an abandoned proceeding a jurisdiction-creating effect, which Section 42 neither contemplates nor permits. Jurisdiction under Section 42 crystallises only when a court validly assumes seisin; it does not survive the abandonment of proceedings by the party who invoked the court‟s jurisdiction in the first place.”
Arbitrator Cannot Grant Claims Contrary To Clear Contract Terms, Delhi High Court Reiterates
Case Title : Jay Gee Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. Indraprastha Power Generation Co. Ltd.
Case Number : FAO(OS) 223/2010
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 50
The Delhi High Court, reiterating a settled law, has said that additional compensation cannot be granted where a claim runs contrary to clear contractual terms, even if an arbitrator has allowed it. Holding so, The court granted relief to Indraprastha Power Generation by setting aside portions of the arbitral award that were contrary to the contract with Jay Gee Construction A Division Bench of Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar observed that an arbitral tribunal cannot grant relief by ignoring express provisions agreed upon between the parties.
Case Title : Delhi Jal Board v. M/S Mohini Electricals Ltd
Case Number : FAO(OS)(COMM) 210/2022 & CM APPL. 36624/2022
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 46
The Delhi High Court has held that financing charges under a FIDIC-based construction contract can be claimed only on amounts that are formally certified or have clearly become payable under the contract, and not on disputed or unverified claims. A Division Bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla partly allowed an appeal filed by the Delhi Jal Board against a Single Judge order that had upheld an arbitral award in favour of Mohini Electricals Ltd., setting aside the portion of the award that granted financing charges on uncertified claims.
The court said an arbitrator cannot ignore mandatory payment conditions written into the contract. "Self-serving documents, unsupported by corroborative proof, cannot be treated as evidence of actual expenditure. Reliance on such material renders the impugned award unsupported by evidence and squarely places it within the category of a finding based on “no evidence,” the bench said.
Case Title: Natasha Oberoi v. Rajaraman Shankar & Ors.
Case Number: O.M.P. (I) (COMM.) 373/2025 & I.A. 22577-78/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 47
A single judge bench of Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav said that arbitration requires clear and demonstrable consent. The court observed that "Thus, the mere existence of a document, despite it containing an arbitration clause, and persons, even if they are party to it, would not qualify as an ―arbitration agreement‖ unless it is signed by the parties, including the party seeking to invoke the clause as also the party against whom enforcement is sought." “The naming of an interested party as an adjudicator between the parties,” the court said, “may be an indication of the clause not intending to be a binding process to decide their substantive rights and liabilities, but an in-house, pre-escalation, resolution-oriented mechanism.” On these findings, the High Court dismissed the petition, holding that there was no valid arbitration agreement and that interim relief under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act was not available.
Case Title: SJVN Ltd. v. Patel Gammon Joint Venture
Case Number: O.M.P. (COMM) 9/2017
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 15
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a petition filed by SJVN Limited challenging an arbitral award that granted payment to Patel Gammon Joint Venture for transporting excavated material during a hydroelectric project in Himachal Pradesh.
The Delhi High Court single-judge bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh upheld the substance of the arbitral award but held that the court lacked territorial jurisdiction to entertain the challenge under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Justice Singh reiterated that courts do not sit in appeal over arbitral awards and that the scope of interference under Section 34 is very "narrow.” On jurisdiction, the court said the contract conferred exclusive jurisdiction on courts in Himachal Pradesh. Since the arbitration clause provided for multiple venues, including Delhi, the judge held that Delhi could not be treated as the juridical seat of arbitration.
Contracts Terminable For Breach With Cure Period Not Determinable: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Mahajan Imaging Pvt Ltd v. Pushpawati Singhania Research Institute & Anr.
Case Number: O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 29/2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 209
The Delhi High Court has recently observed that a contract which permits termination only for material breach and subject to a mandatory cure period is not “in its nature determinable” under Section 14(d) of the Specific Relief Act. Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar stayed the operation and effect of the termination notice dated January 2, 2026, issued by Pushpawati Singhania Research Institute (PSRI) to Mahajan Imaging Pvt Ltd. He also directed both sides to maintain status quo until the dispute is decided through arbitration.
Jurisdiction Clause In Umbrella Agreement Prevails Over Later Contract: Delhi High Court
Case Title : Ansal Housing Limited v. SS Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd. & Anr with Connected Matter
Case Number : O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 43/2026 & 44/2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 168
The Delhi High Court has recently ruled that when an umbrella agreement fixes a venue in one city but expressly confers jurisdiction on courts in another, the jurisdiction clause will prevail unless the parties clearly alter the juridical seat for the entire transaction.
Dismissing two petitions filed by Ansal Housing Limited seeking interim relief under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar ruled that courts at Meerut, and not Delhi, had territorial jurisdiction.
Explaining the principle, the Court observed, “Where the umbrella agreement consciously designates a venue in one city and subjects itself to the jurisdiction of courts in another, the latter cannot be eclipsed absent a clear and unequivocal stipulation altering the juridical seat for the entire transaction"
No Concluded Contract, No Interim Relief: Delhi High Court Dismisses Developer's Plea Against ARCIL
Case Title : Parsvnath Developers Limited & Ors. v. Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited & Ors.
Case Number : O.M.P. (I) (COMM) 330/2025 & O.M.P. (I) (COMM) 367/2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 171
The Delhi High Court has dismissed Parsvnath Developers' plea seeking enforcement of an alleged Rs. 750 crore restructuring agreement against Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited, holding that courts cannot compel parties to honour a settlement that never matured into a concluded contract.
Justice Jasmeet Singh held that the draft restructuring agreement remained at a negotiatory stage. Although drafts were exchanged, essential terms were unsettled. The schedules were marked preliminary and subject to internal approval. Several material particulars were left blank.
In these circumstances, the court held, “In the absence of a concluded agreement, the foundational basis for the reliefs sought in the present petition collapses
Delhi High Court Reiterates Referral Court Cannot Limit Arbitrator To Specific Claims
Case Title : Puri Constructions Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. Larsen & Toubro Ltd.
Case Number : ARB.P. 1610/2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 119
The Delhi High Court recently reiterated that a Referral Court under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, cannot dictate which disputes an arbitrator should hear. Its role is limited to appointing an arbitrator, leaving all substantive claims and defences for the arbitrator to decide. Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar imposed costs of Rs. 50,000 on Puri Constructions, the petitioner, for attempting to restrict the arbitration to selective claims while appointing Hon'ble Justice Mukul Mudgal (Retired) as the sole arbitrator in its long-standing dispute with Larsen & Toubro (L&T). The Bench held: “The queue for justice stretches several decades, and Counsel and litigants who can afford to litigate endlessly, in the opinion of this Court, would need a timely reminder to respect the cause of justice to all litigants and cooperate with the judicial system.”
Case Title : Fresh and Healthy Enterprise Ltd v. Global AgriSystem Pvt Ltd & connected matter
Case Number : O.M.P. (COMM) 174/2016 & O.M.P. (COMM) 181/2016
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 140
The Delhi High Court on 11 February upheld an arbitral award directing Fresh and Healthy Enterprises Ltd (FHEL) to pay over Rs. 80 lakh in damages to Global AgriSystem Pvt Ltd (GAPL) for failure to maintain agreed storage conditions, while also confirming FHEL's entitlement to over Rs. 87 lakh towards rental and handling charges.
A Single Bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh dismissed cross-petitions filed by both companies, while reiterated that courts exercising jurisdiction under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 cannot reassess factual findings of an arbitral tribunal if they represent a reasonable and plausible view.
Justice Singh held: "The findings of the Sole Arbitrator are a reasonable and plausible view and this Court under Section 34 petition is not to reassess the findings on facts if the same are reasonable". Finding no perversity in the Arbitrator's factual assessment, the Court held that the award was neither “in contravention with the public policy of India” nor “patently illegal.”
Case Title : Hala Kamel Zabal v. Arya Trading Ltd & Ors.
Case Number : FAO(OS)(COMM) 230/2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 120
The Delhi High Court has refused to set aside a 2012 arbitral award after a shareholder argued that the arbitrator was wrongly appointed by the High Court instead of the Supreme Court in an international commercial arbitration. Rejecting the challenge, the court held that the Arbitration and Conciliation Act does not permit annulment of an award merely because of a dispute over which court appointed the arbitrator.
"Section 34(2)(a)(v) does not contemplate the setting aside of an arbitral award solely on the ground that the arbitrator was appointed by an authority allegedly lacking competence. The said provision is narrowly tailored and permits interference only where the composition of the arbitral tribunal or the arbitral procedure was not in accordance with the agreement of the parties, unless such agreement itself is in conflict with a non-derogable provision of Part I of the A&C Act. In the absence of such a conflict, irregularities, if any, in the appointment process do not, ipso facto, vitiate the arbitral award,” the court said.
Case Title : Airports Authority of India v. URC Construction (P) Ltd
Case Number : O.M.P. (COMM) 348/2019
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 146
The Delhi High Court dismissed a challenge by the Airports Authority of India (AAI) and upheld an arbitral award directing it to pay Rs. 2.57 Crore with interest and Rs 7 lakh as costs to URC Construction (P) Ltd. The Court held that the 477-day delay in constructing a new control tower-cum-technical block at Mangalore International Airport was attributable to AAI.
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna held that the arbitrator's findings were based on a detailed analysis of the record and could not be interfered with under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. “The conclusion that the delay of 477 days was attributable to the Petitioner is based on a detailed analysis of the hindrance register, site constraints, and the conduct of the parties. This finding is neither perverse nor illegal,” the Court observed.
Case Title : Dusters Total Solutions Services Pvt. Ltd. v. All India Institute of Medical Sciences
Case Number : FAO (COMM) 132/2024
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 121
The Delhi High Court has upheld an arbitral award permitting the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, to encash 50% of a contractor's Performance Bank Guarantee after short payment of wages to sanitation workers was established. A Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Amit Mahajan held that neither the arbitral award nor the district court's order dismissing objections to it suffered from perversity or patent illegality warranting interference. The court noted that the contractor, Dusters Total Solutions Services Pvt. Ltd., failed to ensure full payment of wages to its workers. The sanitation workers were deployed at AIIMS under the outsourcing contract, though they were formally employed by the contractor. This exposed AIIMS to statutory liability under Section 21(4) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. The provision makes the principal employer responsible for paying the full wages, or any unpaid balance, if the contractor fails to do so. Upholding the arbitral tribunal's reasoning, the bench observed that permitting partial encashment of the performance security reflected an effort “to balance contractual consequences with the nature and gravity of the breaches established on record”.
Delhi High Court Sets Aside Part Of Arbitral Award Over 'Cryptic Observations'
Case Title : Gorkha Security Services v. Directorate of Health Services
Case Number : O.M.P. (COMM) 453/2017
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 105
The Delhi High Court recently held that an arbitral tribunal cannot reject a claim through "cryptic" reasoning and that such an award is open to interference even within the limited scope of review under arbitration law. The matter was decided by Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, who emphasised that giving reasons is a core requirement of arbitral decision-making. “The insistence on reasons is not a mere empty formality,” the Court said, adding that reasons must show how the decision-maker moved from facts to conclusions. The court noted that the arbitrator did not analyze any contractual provision or explain how such a gap defeated the claim. “Such cryptic observations, unsupported by intelligible reasoning, render the findings opaque and unintelligible,” the Court held. Applying the doctrine of severability, the court set aside only the portion of the award denying interest and costs, left the Rs 3.48 crore award intact, and remanded the limited issue to the arbitral tribunal for fresh consideration.
Case Title : Avneet Soni v. Kavita Agarwal
Case Number : EX.P. 386/2015
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 108
The Delhi High Court has imposed Rs 1 lakh in costs on a litigant for what it called a “calculated attempt” to stall enforcement of a decade-old arbitral award. Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar dismissed the objection application, holding that repeated attempts to delay execution, as in the present case, cannot be justified as an exercise of legal rights. The court underscored that the award, passed on December 31, 2014, had already attained finality. “The approach adopted by the Objector reflects a calculated attempt to obstruct and delay the enforcement of a decree which has already been conclusively adjudicated and is legally binding. Such conduct, if condoned, undermines the efficacy of judicial processes and the faith of litigants in the rule of law,” the bench said. “Repeated invocation of the same ground, more than ten years after the filing of the Execution Petition and over eleven years after the Award was rendered, cannot be regarded as a genuine or bona fide exercise of legal rights. Rather, it reflects a deliberate attempt to obstruct the enforcement of a valid and binding arbitral award, thereby clogging the machinery of justice,” the Court further held.
Delhi High Court Rejects Reliance Industries' Objections To Centre's Appeal In $3.86 Billion Dispute
Case Title : Union of India v. Reliance Industries Ltd. & Anr.
Case Number : EFA(OS)(COMM) 19/2023
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 11
The Delhi High Court on Monday ruled that the Centre's appeal against the refusal to enforce a foreign arbitral award in a $3.86 billion dispute with Reliance Industries can proceed. The court rejected RIL's objections to the Centre's appeal against a single judge order refusing to enforce the foreign arbitral award. The dispute relates to production sharing contracts for the Tapti and Panna Mukta oil and gas fields and a claim of USD 3,856,734,582. A Division Bench of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Madhu Jain held that an order declining enforcement of a foreign arbitral award falls under Section 48 of the Act and is appealable under Section 50. The Bench said, "The words of the legislature must be construed in their natural meaning, without adding or subtracting therefrom. Applying the above test, the words of Section 50(1)(b) of the A&C Act provide for an appeal against the order of a court refusing to enforce a Foreign Award under Section 48 of the A&C Act, which is the case in hand. Therefore, the present appeal is maintainable
Expiry Of Arbitrator's Mandate Due To Lapse Of Time Does Not End Arbitration: Delhi High Court
Case Title : M/s Telexcell Information Systems Limited v Tata Advanced Systems Limited
Case Number : O.M.P (MISC.)(COMM.) 832/2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 177
The Delhi High Court has observed that when an arbitrator's mandate expires due to lapse of time, it does not amount to termination of proceedings under Section 32, Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
A Single-Judge Bench of Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar additionally held that the expiry of mandate by lapse of time is curable and extended the arbitrator's mandate for a further period of six months from the date of the order for making the arbitral award.
The Court noted “...that both parties are ad idem that the pleadings in the arbitration stand completed and that the matter has reached the stage of evidence. In such circumstances, the interests of justice would be better served by facilitating the continuation and culmination of the arbitral proceedings rather than relegating the parties to a fresh round of litigation.”
Delhi High Court Sets Aside Award Ordering Yamaha To Repurchase Unsold Dealership Stock
Case Title : Divya Ashish Jamwal v. India Yamaha Motor Pvt Ltd
Case Number : FAO(OS) (COMM) 363/2019
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 189
Holding that an arbitral tribunal cannot “rewrite the bargain between the parties” or grant relief contrary to the contract, the Delhi High Court on Tuesday upheld the setting aside of an award that had directed India Yamaha Motor Pvt. Ltd. to take back unsold dealership stock and refund its price with 16% annual interest.
Dismissing the dealer's appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, a Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetrapal and Amit Mahajan held that the arbitral award had travelled beyond the terms of the Dealership Agreement.
“The learned Single Judge was justified in holding that the Arbitral Award travelled beyond the terms of the Agreement. The direction to refund the price of stock along with interest was not founded on any contractual stipulation and was premised on considerations extraneous to the Agreement,” the Court observed.
Case Title : Geniemode Global Pvt. Ltd. v. Priyanka Impex Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
Case Number : O.M.P. (MISC.) (COMM.) 150/2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 192
The Delhi High Court recently reiterated that once a dispute is taken to a Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council under the MSMED Act, jurisdiction to entertain challenges arising from those proceedings lies with courts at the location of the Council where the supplier is situated, even if the contract names a different arbitration seat.
Dismissing the petition for want of territorial jurisdiction, Justice Jasmeet Singh held,"Since it is the Facilitation Council at Panchkula, Haryana which has dealt with the issue in controversy, appointed the Arbitrator, conducted the arbitration proceedings, applying the principles of Harcharan Dass Gupta (supra) and Mahakali Foods (supra) as discussed above, is the Courts at the location of Facilitation Council where the supplier is located which will have jurisdiction. This Court lacks the jurisdiction to entertain and try the present petition."
Case Title : Railways Board, Ministry of Railways v. Titagarh Rail Systems Limited
Case Number : O.M.P. (COMM) 475/2024
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 202
The Delhi High Court has set aside a ₹5.19 crore arbitral award against the Railways Board after the Railways challenged the legality of the sole arbitrator it had appointed. The Court held that appointing a serving railway officer as arbitrator, without an express written waiver by both parties, rendered the award void from the beginning.
Allowing a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Justice Avneesh Jhingan held, “The appointment of a serving employee as an arbitrator falls within the teeth of Section 12(5) read with Schedule VII of the Act. The appointment being void ab initio rendered impugned award nullity.”
“In none of the documents relied upon there is an express agreement in writing waiving the rigours of Section 12(5). The short-listing of two names from the four names proposed by the petitioner cannot be considered to be compliance and the waiver has to be specific and not to be implied from conduct,” the Court observed. Holding that statutory ineligibility strikes at the root of jurisdiction and cannot be cured by participation in proceedings, the Court declared the appointment void ab initio and set aside the award.
Case Title : Zreyah Semiconductors Pvt. Ltd. v. Oyo Hotels and Homes Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : O.M.P. (COMM) 249/2023 & I.A. 14284/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 107
The Delhi High Court has ruled in favour of OYO Hotels and Homes Pvt. Ltd. in a dispute over the supply of electronic switches. The Court upheld an arbitral award directing Zreyah Semiconductors Private Limited to deliver 11,000 switches to OYO and refund Rs 2.84 crore with interest. It said the arbitrator's conclusions were plausible and did not call for interference. The case was heard by Justice Avneesh Jhingan. The court agreed with the arbitrator's reading of the contract. It refused to re-examine the evidence. “The finding recorded by the arbitrator suffers from no factual or legal error much less perversity,” the court said. The court also noted that no switches were supplied at all. In those circumstances, there was no contractual basis for demanding a full advance. Finding no patent illegality or perversity, the court dismissed Zreyah's petition and upheld the arbitral award.
Case Title : Steel Authority Of India Limited Versus M/S Primetals Technologies India Pvt. Limited
Case Number : O.M.P. (COMM) 451/2023 & I.A. 21931/2023
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 190
Reiterating that courts cannot rewrite commercial contracts while exercising jurisdiction under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the Delhi High Court has upheld an arbitral award directing Steel Authority of India Ltd (SAIL) to refund Rs. 1.40 crore deducted from a contractor's final bill over an alleged shortfall in Minimum Guaranteed CENVAT Credit (MGCC).
Justice Avneesh Jhingan held that interpretation of contractual clauses lies within the domain of the arbitral tribunal and a court under Section 34 cannot sit in appeal over a plausible view taken by the arbitrator.
“The award was passed after considering the relevant clauses of the contract. The interpretation by the arbitrator is not only plausible but in the absence of any clause providing for deduction on account of shortfall in MGCC, is the only interpretation possible,” the Court observed.
Case Title : Union of India v. M/s Rama Constructions Company
Case Number : O.M.P. (COMM) 312/2020
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 201
The Delhi High Court on 25 February, upheld an arbitral award granting Rs. 80.05 lakh along with 10% interest to Rama Constructions Company in a dispute arising from civil and electrical works executed at the Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium Complex, New Delhi.
Dismissing the Union of India's challenge, Justice Jasmeet Singh reiterated the limited scope of judicial interference, noting that the Arbitrator's findings were evidence-based and did not warrant interference under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Justice Singh observed:
“I am of the view, that the contention of the petitioner that the said claim was adjudicated by the Arbitrator in contravention of the Contract Agreement and is consequently perverse, cuts no ice. The Arbitrator has carefully undertaken a fact grounded appreciation of the entire claim and material placed on record. Be that as it may, in proceedings under Section 34 of the Act, such a fact based and evidence driven determination is entitled to be upheld.”
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.”.
Delhi High Court Declines Interference With Arbitral Award In TDI-DMRC Advertising Rights Dispute
Case Title : TDI International India Ltd Versus Delhi Metro Rail Corporation
Case Number : O.M.P. (COMM) 69/2017
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 212
The Delhi High Court on 24 February dismissed a petition filed by TDI International India Ltd., challenging an arbitral award in a dispute with Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC), holding that no grounds existed for interference under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act).
Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar observed: “...the grant of an ad hoc remission of 50% of the licence fee for the uninstalled area represents an exercise of contractual interpretation and factual appreciation. This Court is unable to hold that such an approach is perverse or patently illegal, or that it contravenes the public policy of India.”
Case Title : Renaissance Buildcon Company Pvt Ltd & Ors. v. Tarjinder Kumar Bansal & Ors.
Case Number : CONT.CAS (C) 802/2021
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 234
The Delhi High Court on 5 February held that parties cannot bypass the arbitral process by approaching the High Court directly for alleged violation of an interim order passed by an arbitral tribunal. Any contempt proceedings must follow the procedural framework under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Justice Saurabh Banerjee dismissed a contempt petition filed by Renaissance Buildcon Company Pvt Ltd and its directors, while noting that the respondents, Tarjinder Kumar Bansal and other former directors and associated persons, were accused of breaching the arbitral tribunal's interim orders.
The Bench held:
“Since the interim order dated 18.07.2015 was passed by the learned Sole Arbitrator under Section 17(1) of the A&C Act in the course of the arbitral proceedings, the petitioners cannot approach this Court by way of the present petition for any contempt thereof. The appropriate remedy under Section 27(5) of the A&C Act would lie before the learned Sole Arbitrator, who upon satisfaction, may make a reference for contempt before this Court.”
Case Title : Khurana Educational Society (Regd.) Versus Smt. Shashi Bala
Case Number : ARB. A. (COMM.) 71/2025 & I.A. 32778/2025 (Stay)
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 236
The Delhi High Court has observed that interim relief under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is meant to preserve the fruits of arbitration and cannot be used to secure a claimant against speculative future contingencies.
Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar in a judgment delivered on February 26, observed:
“Section 17 of the A&C Act is designed to preserve the fruits of arbitration where a real and imminent risk is established; it is not intended to secure a claimant against speculative future contingencies. The record does not disclose any material indicating dissipation of assets, imminent frustration of enforcement, or any circumstance warranting such intrusive financial directions."
Case Title : Sadguru Engineers And Allied Services Pvt Ltd Versus National Highways Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd Represented By Its Managing Director & Ors.
Case Number : O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 18/2026 & I.A. 1378/2026 (Ex.)
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 211
The Delhi High Court has held that a determinable contract cannot be protected against termination. However, interim relief under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 can be granted to stay encashment of conditional bank guarantees if the proposed invocation is prima facie not traceable to the contract.
Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar passed the order in a petition filed by Sadguru Engineers and Allied Services Pvt Ltd against National Highways Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd.
"The raison d'être of Section 9 of the A&C Act is to preserve and protect the subject matter of the dispute in the interregnum, so that the arbitral proceedings, when commenced, are not rendered nugatory. The power vested with the Courts under Section 9 is thus essentially protective and facilitative in character, intended to safeguard and secure the efficacy of the arbitral process and not to supplant it", the court observed
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.”
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”.
Case Title : Kalanithi Maran vs SpiceJet Ltd
Case Number : OMP (COMM) 42 OF 2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 292
The Delhi High Court has rejected a plea by SpiceJet Ltd. seeking to substitute the court-directed cash deposit of Rs. 144.51 crore with security in the form of a Gurugram property owned by the airline, holding that the request was an abuse of process as similar grounds had already been raised before the Supreme Court and rejected. Justice Subramonium Prasad passed the order while dealing with applications seeking modification of directions issued on January 19, 2026, by which the Court had directed SpiceJet to deposit the balance decretal amount arising from an arbitral award in favour of Kalanithi Maran and Kal Airways Pvt. Ltd. The court noted that SpiceJet had earlier challenged the January 19, 2026, order before the Supreme Court on similar grounds, including financial difficulty, but the special leave petition was dismissed with costs after being termed an abuse of process. In these circumstances, the High Court held that the same arguments could not be repeated in the modification applications.
Delhi High Court Upholds ₹1.93 Crore Arbitral Award In Favour Of BEL-ACC In Dispute With NHAI
Case Title : M/s National Highways Authority of India v. M/s BEL-ACC (JV)
Case Number : O.M.P. (COMM) 341/2020
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 300
On 24 March, the Delhi High Court upheld an arbitral award in favour of BEL-ACC (JV) granting Rs. 1.93 crore towards revised rates, overhead losses, and additional resource deployment. Justice Subramonium Prasad dismissed a petition filed by National Highways Authority of India (NHAI), holding that it does not warrant interference under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Court held: “...the findings of the learned Arbitral Tribunal demonstrate that a careful balance between the contractual provisions, the conduct of the parties, and the principles of fairness were maintained.”
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 : ERA Infra Engineering Limited v. National Highways Authority of India & Anr.
Case Number : ARB. A. (COMM.) 47/2025 & I.A. 22290/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 296
The Delhi High Court has held that rejection of an impleadment application by an arbitral tribunal amounts to a jurisdictional determination under Sections 16(2) and 16(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and is therefore appealable under Section 37 of the Act. Justice Avneesh Jhingan observed that while deciding whether a non-signatory can be added to arbitration proceedings, the tribunal necessarily rules on its own jurisdiction. Justice Avneesh Jhingan observed that while deciding whether a non-signatory can be added to arbitration proceedings, the tribunal necessarily rules on its own jurisdiction. “The court on an application for impleadment passes a procedural order but the tribunal in arbitration determines whether it has jurisdiction vis-a-vis the rights and liabilities of a non-signatory to the agreement. While deciding the impleadment of a non-signatory the tribunal deals with the issue of jurisdiction and this falls within the ambit of Section 16(2) and 16(3) of the Act.”
Dues Cannot Be Withheld Till Eternity: Delhi High Court Upholds Award Against MMTC
Case Title : MMTC Limited v. M/s Knowledge Infrastructure & Anr.
Case Number : O.M.P. (COMM) 404/2020
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 298
The Delhi High Court upheld an arbitral award directing MMTC Limited to release withheld amounts of Rs 1.64 crore towards railway surcharge and Rs 56.93 lakh towards detention charges to Knowledge Infrastructure and another party, holding that the amounts could not be retained indefinitely when the alleged liability had not crystallised and the Railways had not processed the claims for years. “Five years have passed since the demands were raised and yet, the Railways had not processed the claims raised by the Respondents, particularly Claim No. 3 and 4, thereby withholding the same. The view taken by the learned Arbitrator that the claims cannot be withheld till eternity, cannot come within the four corners of the expression 'in contravention with the fundamental policy of India law‟ or 'in conflict with the most basic notions of morality and justice”, the Court observed.
Delhi High Court Restores Arbitral Award In Warehouse Fire Case Involving CWC–Indo Arya Logistics
Case Title : Central Warehousing Corporation v. Indo Arya Logistics (A Unit of Indo Arya Central Transport Ltd.)
Case Number : FAO (COMM) 75/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 252
The Delhi High Court on 10 March restored an arbitral award of Rs. 91,62,992 in a warehouse fire dispute between Central Warehousing Corporation and Indo Arya Logistics, holding that the Commercial Court had exceeded its limited powers by substituting its own view on negligence.
A Division Bench of Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora observed that the arbitrator's inference (that Indo Arya Logistics was negligent) was a plausible view arising from the circumstances of the fire.
The Court held that under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the District Court could not interfere with an award unless the arbitrator's conclusion was contrary to public policy or patently illegal. It also reiterated:
“The mere fact that the cause of the accident is unknown does not prevent the plaintiff from recovering the damages… sometimes the fact that the accident occurred may itself constitute evidence of negligence."
Case Title : Synergy Consultants v. M/s T.D. Williamson India Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : FAO(OS)(COMM) 153/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 244
The Delhi High Court on Tuesday upheld an arbitral award in a commission dispute between a consultancy firm and an oil and gas pipeline services company. The court affirmed the arbitrator's view that a representative appointed under a commercial agreement does not automatically become entitled to commission every time the company secures a project from the same customer.
A Division Bench of Justice Anil Kshetrapal and Justice Amit Mahajan dismissed an appeal and affirmed an earlier decision refusing to set aside the award.
"A commercial arrangement of this nature, whereby a representative is appointed to promote products and assist in securing projects, reasonably admits of an interpretation that commission is linked to the services rendered and the extent of participation in the concerned transaction. The view adopted by the Arbitrator, that the representative would be entitled to commission commensurate with the work performed or assistance actually rendered, is a possible and commercially sensible interpretation of the agreement", it held.
Case Title : Man Industries (India) Limited Versus Gail (India) Limited
Case Number : O.M.P. (COMM) 191/2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 258
The Delhi High Court has recently dismissed a petition challenging an arbitral award passed in favour of GAIL (India) Limited, reiterating that the scope of interference under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is limited. The court said it cannot re-appreciate evidence or disturb an award merely because another interpretation of the contract is possible, so long as the arbitrator's view is a plausible one.
Justice Amit Bansal observed that the arbitral tribunal had interpreted the contract to mean that the price reduction schedule would apply if the supplier failed to adhere to the agreed monthly delivery schedule of pipes.
Case Title : Ramsethu Infrastructure v. Indian Railway Welfare Organisation
Case Number : O.M.P. (COMM) 348/2020
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 299
The Delhi High Court upheld an arbitral award in favour of the Indian Railway Welfare Organisation (IRWO), affirming the termination of a housing construction contract and forfeiture of the contractor's bank guarantee and security deposit. The Court held that obstruction by local residents and apprehension of hostility at the site did not fall within the force majeure clause and that the contractor's refusal to resume work amounted to abandonment of the project. The Bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad observed that, "The learned Arbitrator has interpreted the force majeure clause and has come to the conclusion that the present event on which reliance is placed by the Petitioner will not fall within the four corners of force majeure clause. This Court is in agreement with the view taken by the learned Arbitrator. Even otherwise, as repeatedly held by the Apex Court, the interpretation of a contract, predominantly, is in the domain of the Arbitrator. An award cannot be set aside just because another view is possible or sometimes is even more preferable."
Case Title : Wadia Techno Engineering Services Limited v. Director General of Married Accommodation Project & Anr.
Case Number : FAO(OS) (COMM) 195/2024 & connected matters
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 297
The Delhi High Court dismissed appeals filed by Wadia Techno Engineering Services Limited challenging arbitral awards in disputes arising from consultancy agreements for defence housing projects, holding that the consultant was not entitled to higher fees or compensation for delays. A Division Bench of Justice Anil Kshetrapal and Justice Amit Mahajan observed, “In the present case, the Tribunal has examined the contractual definition of “Project Cost” (Article 1.9), the structure of consultancy fees (Article 1.10), and the absence of any clause providing for escalation of consultancy fees. The conclusion reached by the Tribunal that the consultancy fee was not subject to revision merely because the cost of the project increased during execution cannot be said to be an interpretation that is implausible or contrary to the contract.
Case Title : SARR Freights Corporation & Anr. v. Argo Coral Maritime Ltd.
Case Number : CS(OS) 868/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 259
The Delhi High Court recently reiterated that the jurisdiction of civil courts is not barred merely because arbitration is seated outside India but said that the power to restrain such proceedings must be exercised only in exceptional circumstances, refusing to stop arbitration initiated in London by Argo Coral Maritime Ltd. against SARR Freights Corporation and SARR Freights Limited.
Relying on the top court's ruling in Engineering Projects (India) Limited Versus MSA Global LLC (Oman), Justice Mini Pushkarna observed, “The jurisdiction of Indian Civil Courts is not excluded merely because arbitration is seated abroad, and Courts retain residual equitable powers to prevent abuse of arbitral process.”
Case Title : Cosco Blossoms Pvt Ltd Versus Oriental Insurance Company Ltd
Case Number : O.M.P. (COMM) 568/2016
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 255
The Delhi High Court has set aside an arbitral award, holding that an arbitral tribunal cannot rely solely on a defective surveyor's report while ignoring material evidence placed on record. The court observed that although a surveyor's report is an important piece of evidence in insurance disputes, it is not sacrosanct and cannot be treated as conclusive when it suffers from serious infirmities.
Justice Jasmeet Singh observed,
“The Award is squarely based on a survey report which, though an important piece of evidence, is not a sacrosanct document and cannot be accepted at face value when it is clearly defective. The Arbitrator could not have relied solely on the survey report to deliver its findings while disregarding other vital evidence placed on record.”
Case Title : OSA Vendita Pvt. Ltd. v. Bausch and Lomb India Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : O.M.P. (COMM) 336/2022
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 427
The Delhi High Court has recently upheld an arbitral award passed in favour of Bausch & Lomb India Pvt. Ltd., a leading eye-care products manufacturer. It rejected claims of OSA Vendita Pvt. Ltd., its non-exclusive distributor in Kolkata, for loss of profits.
The court found that the distributorship agreement for the supply of eye-care products did not stipulate any assured or fixed sales commitment. In the absence of such a stipulation, the distributor could not recover losses arising from unsold stock and related investments.
It also affirmed that the arbitral tribunal, being empowered under Section 19 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to regulate its own procedure, was right in rejecting the belated testimony of a new witness. The tribunal had also refused to accept additional documents sought to substantiate OSA Vendita's claim of business losses.
Justice Subramonium Prasad observed that “the Petitioner's attempt to fasten liability upon the Respondent for indemnification of its business losses is not stipulated in the Agreement. The Respondent cannot be held liable for losses incurred by the Petitioner in the conduct of its own business operations.”
Delhi High Court Upholds Award For HCL Technologies, Rejects Time Extension From Earlier Proceedings
Case Title : Sahaj Bharti Travels v. HCL Technologies Ltd.
Case Number : O.M.P. (COMM) 180/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 428
The Delhi High Court on 23 April upheld an arbitral award in favour of HCL Technologies Ltd., holding that Sahaj Bharti Travels' claim of over Rs. 3.27 crore towards unpaid Minimum Running Guarantee dues under an employee transport agreement was time-barred.
Justice Subramonium Prasad upheld the Tribunal's refusal to exclude the nearly three-year period (August 2019 to May 2022) spent before the NCLT and NCLAT while computing limitation, as the proceedings were dismissed on merits and not for lack of jurisdiction, and therefore did not satisfy Section 14 of the Limitation Act, as clarified in HPCL Bio-Fuels Ltd. v. Shahaji Bhanudas Bhad. He held:
“It is apposite to state that an application under Section 9 of the IBC and an application under Section 11(6) of the Act are sought for parallel reliefs and hence fails to meet the parameters set out in the HPCL Bio-Fuels Ltd”, adding that “the Tribunal has rightly declined the benefit of the aforesaid section to the Petitioner on the ground that the NCLAT dismissed its claim on merits and not on the question of jurisdiction.”
Case Title : PTC Techno Pvt. Ltd. v. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : O.M.P. (COMM) 129/2019
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 429
The Delhi High Court has recently set aside a 2018 arbitral award arising out of disputes between PTC Techno Pvt. Ltd. and Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., holding that the appointment of the arbitrator by an official of Samsung was legally impermissible.
A Single Bench of Justice Avneesh Jhingan held that the sole arbitrator, Justice Sunil Ambwani (Retd.), had been appointed by the Vice President of the respondent company, which was contrary to Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Court ruled that such an appointment is void ab initio and renders the arbitral proceedings and award a nullity.
“After amendment of Section 12(5) of the Act an employee of a party in dispute can neither be appointed arbitrator nor can nominate or appoint any other person as an arbitrator. The unilateral appointment in absence of an express agreement in writing by the parties to waive applicability of Section 12(5) of the Act is void ab initio," the court observed.
Case Title EMR Chowdary v. Engineering Projects (India) Limited & connected matter
Case Number O.M.P. (COMM) 400/2017 & O.M.P. (COMM) 408/2017
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 440
The Delhi High Court has upheld an arbitral award holding a subcontractor liable to pay over Rs.10 crore to the main contractor under a back-to-back contract for losses caused by its own poor performance.
Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar said: “The recovery of a proportionate share of those penalties from ACC, as the party whose underperformance caused the termination, is a straightforward application of the contractual framework and of the back-to-back principle that governed the parties throughout.”
“The recovery from ACC has been made contingent upon EPI having actually incurred, or being held liable to incur, such differential cost towards SCCL. The afore-said approach espoused by the learned Arbitrator is consistent with the back-to-back arrangement governing the parties, whereby ACC's liability is co-extensive with that of EPI,” the court said.
Case Title: NKG Infrastructure Ltd. v. Airport Authority of India
Case Number: O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 185/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 442
The Delhi High Court has recently restrained the Airport Authority of India from taking any further precipitative or coercive action against NKG Infrastructure Ltd. in relation to bank guarantees aggregating to Rs. 3.17 crore furnished for the Jabalpur Airport upgradation project, noting that the disputes are already under consideration before a Dispute Resolution Committee (DRC).
It clarified that the present order will not apply to two bank guarantees that have already been processed for encashment.
The court further directed that no coercive action shall be taken against the contractor for a period of ten days after the decision by the DRC.
A Single Bench of Justice Mini Pushkarna held:
“Accordingly, since hearing is already being granted and the matter is being taken up by the DRC in terms of Clause 25 of the Agreement between the parties, it is directed that no further precipitative action shall be taken by the respondent against the petitioner, till the proceedings before the DRC are finally adjudicated.”
“The respondent shall also not take coercive action against the petitioner for a further period of 10 days after the decision by the DRC in the proceedings, as aforesaid”, it added.
Amazon- Future Coupons Reach Settlement; Delhi High Court Disposes Challenge To SIAC Award
Case Title : Future Coupons Private Limited & Ors. v. Amazon.com NV Investment Holdings LLC & Ors.
Case Number : O.M.P. (COMM) 458/2025 & connected matters
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 443
The Delhi High Court on Tuesday permitted withdrawal of petitions filed by Future Coupons Private Limited and promoter entities, including Ashni Kishore Biyani, against a Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) award in their dispute with Amazon.
The award had held them in breach of contractual obligations and directed them to pay Rs 23.7 crore in damages, along with Rs 77.3 crore and SGD 68,550 towards costs, but the challenge was withdrawn after the parties entered into a settlement agreement dated March 13, 2026.
Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar recorded that “learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties are ad idem that the disputes between the parties stand resolved and the settlement has been formally reduced into a Settlement Agreement dated 13.03.2026.”
Society Election Disputes Involve Collective Rights, Not Arbitrable: Delhi High Court
Case Title : Nathu Ram Jain v. Akhil Bhartiya Agrawal Sammelan & Ors.
Case Number : ARB.P. 738/2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 426
Holding that disputes arising out of a society's election process are inherently non-arbitrable, the Delhi High Court refused to appoint an arbitrator and declined interim relief to stay the upcoming elections of the Akhil Bhartiya Agrawal Sammelan.
“An election of a society comprising approximately 1,20,000 members involves collective rights. A challenge to the election process, the appointment of a Chief Election Officer, or the validity of the voter list is not a private dispute between two individuals; it is an action in rem. The outcome of such a challenge affects the democratic rights of the entire electorate and the governing structure of the society as a whole. To put it differently, the disputes pertaining to election, which bind not only the contesting candidates but all those in the electoral roll, are inherently non-arbitrable,” Justice Vikas Mahajan held.
Case Title : UPM Kymmene Corporation v. The State Trading Corporation of India Ltd.
Case Number : EX.P. 82/2012
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 413
The Delhi High Court has said, in an arbitration dispute, that once a judgment debtor deposits the decretal amount in court, its liability stands discharged to that extent.
It went on to make clear that execution proceedings cannot be reopened simply because the decree holder decides not to withdraw the money and later tries to take advantage of a more favourable exchange rate.
Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar refused to reopen execution proceedings that had already been disposed of in May 2022, noting that the decretal amount of Rs. 2,89,90,273, arising from US$ 1,30,681.52 along with interest, had been deposited by The State Trading Corporation and remained available for withdrawal, which UPM Kymmene Corporation consciously chose not to avail.
Imposing Rs.1 lakh as costs for misuse of the judicial process, the court observed:
"In law, once a Judgment Debtor deposits the decretal amount in compliance with a judicial order, the obligation qua that extent stands discharged, and the amount is deemed to be placed at the disposal of the Decree Holder. The Court, in such circumstances, merely acts as a custodian of the funds. The liability of the Judgment Debtor does not remain in a state of perpetual flux merely because the Decree Holder elects not to withdraw the amount. To hold otherwise would be to ignore the settled principle that payment into Court, in compliance with judicial direction, constitutes satisfaction to that extent”
No Damages Without Proof Of Loss: Delhi High Court Partly Sets Aside Arbitral Award Against DJB
Case Title : Delhi Jal Board Versus M/S Metrro Waste Handling Private Limited
Case Number : O.M.P. (COMM) 277/2025 & I.A. 17526/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 394
The Delhi High Court on Monday partly set aside an arbitral award in favour of a contractor against the Delhi Jal Board (DJB), holding that damages cannot be granted on the basis of projected turnover without proof of actual loss. Justice Avneesh Jhingan held that "the award of damages in absence of evidence on record of actual loss suffered or a finding recorded that the loss suffered cannot be proved is in violation of Sections 73 and 74 of the Contract Act and against public policy. The tribunal awarded damages without considering the value of the machines, the usage these were put to, loss of business and other factors"
Case Title : Titagarh Rail Systems Limited v. Railway Board, Ministry of Railways
Case Number : FAO(OS) (COMM) 103/2026 & 104/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 406
On 13 April, the Delhi High Court held that an arbitral award is vitiated where the sole arbitrator is ineligible under Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and clarified that such ineligibility cannot be cured by implied consent, procedural participation, or panel-based appointments unless there is an express written waiver after disputes arise. A Division Bench of Justices C. Hari Shankar and Om Prakash Shukla dismissed the appeals filed by Titagarh Rail Systems Limited and affirmed the judgment of the Single Judge setting aside the arbitral award. It held:
“In fact, the situation which exists in the present case is that the very invocation of the procedure, envisaged in the contract between the parties as being applicable in a case in which Section 12(5) stood waived, was itself illegal. That procedure applies only where there is waiver of the applicability of Section 12(5). Inasmuch as there was no such waiver in the present case, the procedure itself would not apply. By erroneously invoking the procedure which applies where Section 12(5) has been waived, waiver of Section 12(5) cannot be implied.”
Case Title : Indian Sugar Exim Corporation Limited Versus Sakuma Exports Limited
Case Number : O.M.P. (COMM) 416/2023 & I.A. 19782/2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 404
The Delhi High Court has recently set aside an arbitral award passed against Indian Sugar Exim Corporation Ltd., holding that damages under Section 73 of the Indian Contract Act cannot be awarded on mere guesswork in the absence of proof of actual loss. Justice Avneesh Jhingan held that “the law is well settled that for claiming damages under Section 73 of the Contract Act, actual loss or damage suffered is to be proved and only in cases where such proof is not possible, a honest genuine estimate may be made. In the case in hand, neither the actual damages were proved nor it was a case where damages/loss cannot be proved yet damages were awarded on sheer guesswork. The award of damages is vitiated being contrary to public policy and is set aside."
Delhi High Court Upholds ₹39.6 Lakh Award Against Austin Hyundai In Paint Supply Dispute With Axalta
Case Title : Austin Hyundai (Austin Distributors Pvt Ltd) v. Axalta Coating Systems India Pvt Ltd
Case Number : FAO (COMM) 98/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 387
The Delhi High Court on Saturday upheld an arbitral award directing Austin Hyundai (Austin Distributors Pvt Ltd) to repay Rs 39.6 lakh to Axalta Coating Systems India Pvt Ltd, holding that termination of its Hyundai dealership did not extinguish its obligations under a separate supply agreement. A bench of Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Amit Mahajan held that the supply agreement imposed independent minimum purchase obligations and was not contingent on the continuation of the dealership.
“In the present case, the Arbitrator has specifically found that the Supply Agreement constituted an independent commercial arrangement containing express minimum purchase obligations for a defined contractual period and that no contractual term made its continuance contingent upon subsistence of the Hyundai Dealership Agreement. The question whether the two agreements were interdependent was thus examined on the basis of the contractual terms and evidentiary record, and answered by the Arbitrator upon appreciation of facts. No perversity, patent illegality, or jurisdictional infirmity in this finding, duly affirmed by the Court exercising jurisdiction under Section 34, has been demonstrated so as to warrant interference in appellate jurisdiction under Section 37,” the court observed.
Case Title : MSA Global LLC (Oman) v. Engineering Projects (India) Limited
Case Number : O.M.P.(EFA)(COMM.) 4/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 385
The Delhi High Court has refused to enforce a foreign award in favour of MSA Global LLC (Oman) against Engineering Projects (India) Limited. It held that the arbitrator's failure to disclose a prior arbitral association with the MSA's Chairman gave rise to justifiable doubts as to his independence. The Court said this non-disclosure deprived the respondent of the opportunity to assess and challenge such impartiality. It therefore rendered the award contrary to the public policy of India under Section 48(2)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Justice Jasmeet Singh observed, “Thus, the statutory scheme governing arbitration makes it abundantly clear that impartiality and independence of the Arbitrator constitute a golden thread that runs through the entire arbitral framework. Any circumstance which undermines this neutrality strikes at the very legitimacy of the adjudicatory process."
Case Title : Lifewell Diagnostics Private Limited v. Micron Laboratory
Case Number : ARB.P. 36/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 376
The Delhi High Court has held that a dispute resolution clause in an arbitration agreement between Lifewell Diagnostics Private Limited and Micron Laboratory, which states that disputes “may be referred to arbitration”, can constitute a valid and binding arbitration agreement where the same clause prescribes a detailed procedure for arbitration and provides that the arbitral award shall be final and binding.
A single bench of Justice Mini Pushkarna observed that the use of the word “may” does not render the clause non-binding when the clause, read as a whole, reflects a clear intention to arbitrate. “The dispute resolution clause, by elucidating the detailed procedure for conduct of arbitration and using the terminology that, 'arbitration shall be conducted as follows', as also by stipulating the governing law and making the arbitration award final and binding on the parties, strongly points towards the unambiguous intention of the parties to refer the disputes to arbitration.”
Delhi High Court Upholds Arbitral Award Directing Flexing It To Convert CCDs Into Equity
Case Title : Flexing It Services Private Limited & Anr. v. Colvyn James Harris
Case Number : O.M.P. (COMM) 111/2025 & OMP (ENF.) (COMM.) 101/2025
CITATION :2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 391
The Delhi High Court recently upheld an arbitral award directing Flexing It Services Private Limited to convert investor Colvyn James Harris's compulsorily convertible debentures into equity equivalent to 2% of the company's shareholding as on January 31, 2017. It also upheld the arbitral finding that repeated acknowledgments of liability in correspondence extended the limitation period.
Declining to set aside the award in a challenge under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the Court allowed enforcement proceedings to continue.
Referring to the arbitral tribunal's findings on limitation, the court noted that the tribunal had found that the correspondence “clearly show repeated acknowledgements of the 1st Respondent's obligation to convert the Claimant's CCDs in accordance with the provision of the Agreement.”
The court further noted the tribunal's finding that “a fresh period of limitation would be deemed to have commenced from the date of each such acknowledgement.”
Delhi High Court Partly Sets Aside Arbitral Award For Denying Pre-Reference Interest Without Reasons
Case Title : Panchanan International Private Limited v. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited
Case Number : O.M.P. (COMM) 8/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 377
The Delhi High Court has held that where an arbitrator, despite finding prolonged and unjustified delay by an insurer in settling a claim, fails to provide reasons as mandated under Section 31(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for denying pre-reference interest, the award suffers from patent illegality and is liable to be set aside.
Partly setting aside an award in a dispute between Panchanan International Private Limited and the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, a Bench of Justice Mini Pushkarna observed, “Once the learned Arbitrator found the respondent responsible for prolonged and unjustified delay, denial of interest for pre-reference period required cogent reasons, which are entirely absent in the impugned Arbitral Award.”
Case Title : JLT Energy 9 SAS v. Hindustan Cleanenergy Limited & Ors.
Case Number : FAO(OS)(COMM) 14/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 378 To
The Delhi High Court has held that where an agreement has, prima facie, ceased to subsist, courts cannot grant interim relief under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in a manner that effectively revives such a contract. Dismissing an appeal filed by JLT Energy 9 SAS, a Division Bench of Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Amit Mahajan upheld a Single Judge's refusal to restrain Hindustan Cleanenergy Limited from creating third-party rights in its solar project assets.
“Where, upon a prima facie examination of the contractual framework and the material placed on record, the Court arrives at the conclusion that the underlying Agreement has ceased to subsist, the jurisdiction under Section 9 cannot be invoked to grant interim relief so as to resurrect or revive a terminated contract. Grant of interim protection in such circumstances would amount to granting final relief in the guise of an interim measure and would run contrary to the settled principles governing Section 9,” the Bench observed.
Case Title : M/s Splendor Landbase Limited v. M/s NTT Data Global Delivery Services Private Limited
Case Number : O.M.P. (COMM) 479/2025, 480/2025, 481/2025, 483/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 384
The Delhi High Court has recently held that parties can challenge arbitral awards covering both claims and counterclaims through a composite petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, rejecting an objection that separate petitions were required as they amounted to distinct “decrees”. Emphasising that Section 36(1), which states that an arbitral award “shall be enforced as if it were a decree of the court,” is confined to the stage of enforcement, the Court observed: "In the present context, the fiction operates only to enable the enforcement and execution of an arbitral award by borrowing the procedural machinery of the CPC. It does not equate an arbitral award to a decree for all purposes, nor does it import the entire procedural regime of the CPC into arbitral proceedings. Significantly, it does not govern or alter the manner in which an arbitral award may be challenged, which remains exclusively regulated by Sections 34 and 37 of the A&C Act".
Delhi High Court Sets Aside Arbitral Award For Refusal To Examine Key Witnesses Who Left Employment
Case Title : Sujit Kumar Jaiswal v. The Managing Director, Dalmia Research International Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : O.M.P. 110/2009
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 339
The Delhi High Court on 1 April held that refusing to examine key witnesses solely because they were no longer employees of the company undermines a fair arbitral hearing, particularly when those witnesses were directly involved in the transaction. Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar set aside an arbitral award in a dispute between Sujit Kumar Jaiswal and Dalmia Research International Pvt. Ltd., holding that by selectively accepting the company's version, the Tribunal deprived him of a fair opportunity to prove his case, contrary to Section 18 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which mandates equal treatment.
The Court stated: “In the opinion of this Court, the mere fact that such individuals were no longer in the employment of the Respondent could not have constituted a valid ground for refusing their examination, particularly when their testimony had a direct bearing on the authenticity of the disputed Agreement.
Delhi HC Upholds ₹7.14 Crore Arbitral Award In Favour Of Corporate Infotech Against NTRO
Case Title : National Technical Research Organisation v. M/s Corporate Infotech Private Limited
Case Number : O.M.P. (COMM) 378/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 340
The Delhi High Court on 1 April, held that Corporate Infotech Private Limited (CIPL) is entitled to the balance payment of Rs. 7,14,61,511 from the National Technical Research Organisation (NTRO) and upheld the arbitral award in its favour in a dispute over a secure intranet network project. A Bench of Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar observed that liquidated damages could not be imposed and final payments could not be withheld where delays were attributable to both parties and the system had already been taken over for operational use. He observed:
“Having rejected the claim for levy of LD and having found no established loss or subsisting breach, justifying retention of the said amount, the learned Tribunal concluded that the Respondent was entitled to the release of the withheld balance consideration. The direction for payment thus flows as a natural consequence of the rejection of LD and the determination of completion of contractual milestones.”
Filing Same Defective Petition Repeatedly To Save Limitation Is Abuse Of Process: Delhi High Court
Case Title : Ms. Stalagmite Infracon Pvt. Ltd. v. Ms. Ashray Homes Build Well Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : O.M.P. (COMM) 367/2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 349
The Delhi High Court has refused to entertain a challenge to an arbitral award, holding that repeatedly re-filing the same defective petition without curing defects, in an attempt to stay within limitations, amounts to a “flagrant misuse and abuse of the process of Court”. A bench of Justice Mini Pushkarna found that Stalagmite Infracon Pvt. Ltd. had filed its Section 34 petition on the last permissible day but continued to re-file the same defective 701-page petition multiple times without curing 19 Registry objections, including even correcting the case category, and only removed defects months later after expanding the filing to 2,622 pages.
“Such conduct of the petitioner constitutes a flagrant misuse and abuse of the process of Court, and demonstrates that the petitioner acted with willful neglect, in reckless disregard to the timelines set out for removing the defects and objections, as raised by the Registry of this Court.”
Case Title : Union of India vs M/s Varindera Constructions Ltd.
Case Number : O.M.P. (COMM) 73/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 350
The Delhi High Court has observed that the time limit for arbitrators to pass awards cannot be treated as a rigid ground to invalidate arbitral proceedings and dismissed a challenge to an arbitral award on the ground that the arbitrator's mandate had expired. “The statutory architecture of Section 29A of the A&C Act must therefore be understood not as a rigid mechanism intended to invalidate arbitral proceedings upon a mere lapse of time, but as a supervisory framework designed to ensure timely completion of arbitration while preserving the continuity of the adjudicatory process. The scheme of the provision itself makes this position clear,” the court observed.
Case Title : Amazon Seller Services Pvt Ltd v. Aashirvad Cinemas & Ors.
Case Number : O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 148/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 351
The Delhi High Court has temporarily restrained Aashirvad Cinemas from creating any third-party OTT rights in the upcoming Mohanlal-starrer Malayalam film tentatively titled “Drishyam 3”, granting interim protection to Amazon Seller Services Pvt. Ltd. in an arbitration dispute. Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar held that Amazon had made out a case for ad-interim relief and barred the producers, till the next hearing, from “creating or otherwise dealing with any third-party rights in respect of the non-linear internet-based rights” in the film, including its Malayalam version, dubbed versions, and a potential Hindi remake.
“Keeping in view the submissions advanced by the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner at length and in particular, the submissions relating to the triple test, this Court is satisfied that the essential ingredients for grant of interim relief, namely, the existence of a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and likelihood of irreparable harm, stand established in favour of the Petitioner,” the court observed.
Case Title : Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Anil Gupta & Ors.
Case Number : O.M.P. 709/2011
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 356
The Delhi High Court has upheld an arbitral award granting 18% interest on the awarded sum to a contractor, holding that tribunals have wide discretion to fix interest rates under the pre-2015 arbitration law. Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, in a dispute between the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) and Anil Gupta, however, modified the award to direct that interest would run only from July 6, 2008, the date of invocation of arbitration, instead of March 8, 2004.
“Under the statutory framework prevailing prior to the 2015 amendment, Section 31(7)(a) of the the A&C Act, conferred a wide and substantive discretion upon the learned Arbitral Tribunal to award pre-reference as well as pendente lite interest at such rate as it deemed reasonable, unless the parties had expressly agreed otherwise. The provision, in its plain terms, recognised the autonomy of the Arbitral forum to determine the appropriate rate of interest having regard to the factual matrix of the dispute, the conduct of the parties, and the period during which the claimant was deprived of monies found due,” the court observed.
Case Title : Ministry of Health & Family Welfare v. Nagarjuna Construction Ltd.
Case Number : O.M.P. (COMM) 337/2017
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 362
The Delhi High Court has upheld an arbitral award in favour of NCC Limited in a dispute arising from the construction of the medical college and hostel complex at AIIMS Bhopal, finding no ground for interference under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Justice Jasmeet Singh dismissed a petition filed by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare challenging the arbitral award dated 8 May 2017 passed by a sole arbitrator.
"Since, the delays leading to the prolongation of Contract were clearly held attributable to the petitioner, these co-related counter claims flowing from the same cause were rejected by the Arbitrator. This Court finds no reason to interfere with the findings of the Arbitrator regarding attribution of delays in execution of works under the Contract and consequently, the findings of the Arbitrator qua the aforesaid counterclaims also deserves to be upheld", it held.
Seat Of Arbitration Can Be Inferred From Exclusive Jurisdiction Clause: Delhi High Court
Case Title : PIDGE TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD VS SLIKSYNC TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD
Case Number : ARB.P. 390/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 359
The Delhi High Court on 8 April 2026 held that where an agreement provides for arbitration and also contains an exclusive jurisdiction clause, such clause indicates the seat of arbitration even if the agreement does not expressly specify the seat or venue.
A Single-Judge Bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad heard a petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 filed by Pidge Technologies Pvt. Ltd. seeking appointment of an arbitrator in its dispute with Sliksync Technologies Pvt. Ltd. arising out of a Merchant Services Agreement dated 18 September 2024. He held:
“...this Court holds that it has the jurisdiction to entertain the present Petition and appoint an arbitrator. In view of the above, this Court is inclined to appoint a Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes arising between the parties.
Party Cannot Bypass MSMED Act Mechanism To Seek Arbitrator Appointment: Delhi High Court
Case Title : M/s Jubilant Marketing Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s Robbins Tunneling and Trenchless Technology India Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : ARB.P. 2129/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 363
The Delhi High Court on 9 April 2026 held that once a party invokes the dispute resolution mechanism under Section 18 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 and the matter is pending before the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, it cannot bypass that process by approaching the Court under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. A Bench of Justice Mini Pushkarna clarified that even where the Council delays in initiating arbitration, the statutory mechanism under the MSMED Act cannot be sidestepped, as conciliation must first conclude before arbitration can commence. The Court observed:
“Once a party initiates the mechanism envisaged under Section 18 of the MSMED Act, it is bound to adhere to the statutory framework and cannot be permitted to abandon the process midway. Further, the proceedings initiated thereunder must necessarily be taken to their logical conclusion. Such party cannot seek recourse under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act, for appointment of an arbitrator.”
Case Title : Indian Oil Corporation v. Metro Builders (Orissa) Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : O.M.P. (COMM) 246/2016
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 360
The Delhi High Court has set aside an arbitral award, holding that an award lacking intelligible reasoning is liable to be set aside under Section 34, as arbitral awards must satisfy the requirement of reasoned decisions under Section 31(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. A Bench of Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar held that an arbitral award must disclose a clear reasoning process and cannot merely reproduce pleadings or record conclusions without analysis.
On a closer look at the award, the Court found little to indicate any independent application of mind. What was presented as reasoning was, in substance, a reproduction of the parties' pleadings and submissions. The conclusions, it noted, appeared as bare assertions without any adjudicatory reasoning.
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.
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"
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.”
Case Title: Ocean View Properties LLP v. Baleshwar Sharma & Ors.
Case Number: ARB. A. (COMM.) 62/2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 449
The Delhi High Court has reiterated that where an arbitral tribunal rejects a jurisdictional objection, including to the impleadment of a non-signatory, the challenge to such a decision can be raised only after the tribunal proceeds with the arbitration and makes an award.
On this basis, the court dismissed as not maintainable an appeal filed by Ocean View Properties LLP against an order of the arbitral tribunal impleading it as a party to the proceedings, even though it was not a signatory to the arbitration agreement.
Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar observed that “the statutory mandate necessitates that any challenge mounted to an order passed in exercise of powers relatable to Section 16 must remain circumscribed by Section 16(5) of the Act, and any challenge thereto would be permissible only at the stage contemplated therein.”
Amazon- Future Coupons Reach Settlement; Delhi High Court Disposes Challenge To SIAC Award
Case Title: Future Coupons Private Limited & Ors. v. Amazon.com NV Investment Holdings LLC & Ors.
Case Number: O.M.P. (COMM) 458/2025 & connected matters
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 443
The Delhi High Court on Tuesday permitted withdrawal of petitions filed by Future Coupons Private Limited and promoter entities, including Ashni Kishore Biyani, against a Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) award in their dispute with Amazon.
The award had held them in breach of contractual obligations and directed them to pay Rs 23.7 crore in damages, along with Rs 77.3 crore and SGD 68,550 towards costs, but the challenge was withdrawn after the parties entered into a settlement agreement dated March 13, 2026.
Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar recorded that “learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties are ad idem that the disputes between the parties stand resolved and the settlement has been formally reduced into a Settlement Agreement dated 13.03.2026.”
Case Title: PTC Techno Pvt. Ltd. v. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number: O.M.P. (COMM) 129/2019
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 429
The Delhi High Court has recently set aside a 2018 arbitral award arising out of disputes between PTC Techno Pvt. Ltd. and Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., holding that the appointment of the arbitrator by an official of Samsung was legally impermissible.
A Single Bench of Justice Avneesh Jhingan held that the sole arbitrator, Justice Sunil Ambwani (Retd.), had been appointed by the Vice President of the respondent company, which was contrary to Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Court ruled that such an appointment is void ab initio and renders the arbitral proceedings and award a nullity.
“After amendment of Section 12(5) of the Act an employee of a party in dispute can neither be appointed arbitrator nor can nominate or appoint any other person as an arbitrator. The unilateral appointment in absence of an express agreement in writing by the parties to waive applicability of Section 12(5) of the Act is void ab initio," the court observed.
Case Title : M/S BRH Wealth Kreators Ltd. v. Sudhir Kumar Aggarwal
Case Number : FAO (COMM) 55/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 558
The Delhi High Court has partly set aside findings of a District Judge that had held brokerage firm BRH Wealth Kreators Ltd. guilty of defrauding an investor in connection with alleged unauthorised trades in his demat account.
It held that findings of fraud cannot be returned without documentary evidence and cannot be based on intuition, conjectures or surmises.
However, a Division Bench of Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora upheld the District Judge's order only to the extent that it gave effect to the Investor Grievance Redressal Panel's (IGRP) order. The Bench modified the relief granted by the IGRP and directed the brokerage firm to pay ₹20 lakh to investor Sudhir Kumar Aggarwal in full and final settlement of the dispute.
It observed, “We find merit in the submission of the Appellant to the effect that the said findings are not based on any documentary evidence and are instead based on conjectures and surmises. The findings of the fraud had to be on the basis of the documentary evidence available on record and could not be based on the intuition of the Court. The said findings of the fraud are directly contrary to the findings returned by the Appellate Arbitral Tribunal on the basis of the documents. We, therefore, set aside the order of the learned District Judge to the extent it finds the Appellant guilty of practicing fraud on the Respondent herein"
Case Title: Jiangxi Construction Engineering Group Co Ltd & Anr. v. M/s Varaha Infra Ltd.
Case Number: ARB.P. 247/2026 & O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 23/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 554
The Delhi High Court has referred to arbitration a fresh round of disputes between Jiangxi Construction Engineering Group Co. Ltd. and Varaha Infra Ltd., holding that claims arising from their joint venture agreements, settlement arrangement, consent arbitral award and mortgage deeds were too closely connected to be separated.
Justice Mini Pushkarna appointed former Delhi High Court judge Justice (Retd.) Jayant Nath as sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties.
The court observed, "Thus, the disputes as raised by the petitioners with regard to non-compliance of the terms of the Settlement Agreement and Consent Arbitral Award and the disputes with regard to the Mortgage Deed dated 06th May, 2022, are intertwined.”
The Court further held, “Accordingly, all the disputes raised by the petitioners in terms of the JV Agreements between the parties, for violation of the terms of the Settlement Agreement and Consent Arbitral Award and all the disputes in terms of the Mortgage Deed between the parties, in terms of the invocation of the Arbitration Clause by the respondent, are to be referred for adjudication before an Arbitral Tribunal.”
Case Title: Mrs Amila Singhvi & Anr. v. Mr Nitin Gupta
Case Number: EFA (COMM) 20/2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 557
The Delhi High Court has held that directors of International Print O Pac Ltd., against whom execution proceedings were initiated after the corporate veil of the company was lifted, can raise all objections available to the company, including a plea that the arbitral award sought to be enforced is a nullity.
A Division Bench of Justice Dinesh Mehta and Justice Vinod Kumar set aside a Saket Commercial Court order rejecting objections filed by directors Amila Singhvi and another against enforcement of an arbitral award of ₹82.39 lakh in favour of Nitin Gupta, proprietor of Tirupati Paper Corporation.
The dispute arose out of arbitration proceedings initiated by Gupta for recovery of outstanding dues. The invoices exchanged between the parties contained a clause stating, "All disputes are subject to P.M.A. Delhi and jurisdiction of Delhi Courts."
Delhi High Court Denies Interim Relief To Buyer As Developer's Claims Fail In Arbitration
Case Title: Bhanu Arora v. Mr Aditya Bhutani & Anr.
Case Number: O.M.P.(I) 20/2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 550
The Delhi High Court has refused interim protection to a purchaser seeking to restrain the creation of third-party rights and maintain status quo over the first floor of a Greater Kailash-I property, holding that the claim could not survive once the developer's claimed authority to create such rights stood rejected in arbitration
Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar held that the buyer's claim was entirely derivative of the Collaboration Agreement executed between developer Aditya Bhutani and the property owner, under which Bhutani had claimed authority to deal with the property.
“The present Petition, in effect, seeks protection and enforcement of rights which are entirely derivative of the claims asserted by Respondent No. 1 under the Collaboration Agreement. Once those claims themselves have been negatived by a binding arbitral award presently operating in law, this Court cannot, in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 9 of the A&C Act, grant interim reliefs which would directly or indirectly defeat, dilute, or render ineffective the findings returned in the arbitral award dated 03.02.2026” the Court observed.
Case Title: QC One Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation
Case Number: O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 132/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 549
The Delhi High Court has refused interim relief to QC One Solutions Pvt. Ltd. against Delhi Metro Rail Corporation's termination of a licence agreement for commercial spaces at three metro stations. The court prima facie found that the company had repeatedly defaulted on payment of licence fees and electricity dues despite multiple opportunities to cure the breaches.
Justice Vikas Mahajan, in an order passed on May 20, held that QC One Solutions had failed to establish a prima facie case for protection pending arbitration.
“In the absence of any contractual provision invalidating prior notices due to the mere passage of time, the alleged procedural infirmity cannot serve as a valid ground to grant equitable relief under Section 9 of the Act, rather it is borne out from the record that while the respondent repeatedly afforded the petitioner opportunities to cure their defaults, these opportunities appear to have been met with delayed and partial payments, thereby prima facie establishing a consistent pattern of breach regarding fundamental contractual obligations.," the court observed.
Extension Without Liquidated Damages Does Not Bar Damages Or Bank Guarantee Invocation: Delhi HC
Case Title : Kalpataru Projects International Limited v. JSW Infrastructure Limited
Case Number: O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 218/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 546
The Delhi High Court on 25 May held that extension of time without levy of liquidated damages does not, by itself, prevent a party from later invoking contractual remedies, including liquidated damages and enforcement of an unconditional bank guarantee, where disputes relating to delay and termination require arbitral adjudication.
A Bench of Justice Mini Pushkarna declined relief to Kalpataru Projects International Limited and refused to grant interim protection under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, in a dispute arising from a Rs. 240 crore iron ore slurry pipeline project in Odisha. It held:
“This Court is of the prima facie view that the extension of time for completion of the Contract without liquidated damages entailed execution of the work by the petitioner. In the absence of completion of the work and in view of the various disputes between the parties as regards execution of the work and termination of the contract by the petitioner, it cannot prima facie be said that the respondent would be barred from imposing liquidated damages.”
Case Title: Public Works Department (Govt. of Delhi) Through Its Office Executive Engineer (Electrical) v. Budhiraja Electricals Through Its Partner Mr. Mohinder Lal Budhiraja connected with Budhiraja Electricals v. Public Works Department (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
Case Number: O.M.P. (COMM.) 207/2017 and O.M.P. (ENF.) (COMM.) 46/2018
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 543
The Delhi High Court on 22 May set aside arbitral awards granting Rs. 38.96 lakh towards escalation and Rs. 16.23 lakh towards loss of profits to Budhiraja Electricals in its dispute with the Public Works Department, Government of NCT of Delhi.
Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar held that an arbitral tribunal cannot use Clause 10CC of the General Conditions of Contract as a substitute for proof of actual loss once it finds the clause inapplicable to the extended period, and reiterated that damages must be proved under Section 73 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. The Bench held:
“Mere adoption of a contractual formula, particularly one which itself stands excluded by the terms of the contract for the relevant period, cannot substitute the requirement of evidence. By treating the formula under Clause 10CC of the GCC as a proxy for proof of damages, the learned Arbitrator has effectively dispensed with the fundamental burden resting upon the claimant to establish actual loss and its quantification. Such an approach renders the Award legally vulnerable”.
Delhi High Court Quashes ₹2.30 Crore Arbitral Award Against IRCTC In Meal Tariff Dispute
Case Title: Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation Limited v. Foodworld
Case Number: O.M.P. (COMM) 51/2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 540
The Delhi High Court has set aside an arbitral award directing Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation Ltd. (IRCTC) to pay ₹2.30 crore to Foodworld in a dispute over reimbursement for second regular meals and welcome drinks under railway catering contracts.
Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar held that the controversy was substantially covered by the Supreme Court's ruling in Indian Railways Catering and Tourism Corp. Ltd. v. Brandavan Food Products.
“The interpretation adopted by the learned Arbitrator in the present matter is directly contrary to the binding legal position declared by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court and, consequently, falls foul of the settled principles governing patent the illegality and contravention of the fundamental policy of Indian law, as elucidated in OPG Power Generation (supra) and the Brandavan case itself." the court said.
Case Title : Pandrol Rahee Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. IRCON International Ltd.
Case Number : O.M.P. (COMM) 414/2023
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 518
The Delhi High Court on 20 May upheld an arbitral award rejecting Pandrol Rahee Technologies Pvt. Ltd.'s claim for additional payment from IRCON International Ltd. for supplying extra components for ballastless track fastening systems, holding that the contract remained a fixed-price “set-based” agreement despite variations in quantity.
Justice Avneesh Jhingan observed that, “if the argument is taken to its logical end, it would mean that upon variation, the contract would change from a set-based to a component-based contract, which the parties never contemplated.”
Arbitration Case-Management Orders Are Not Open To Section 34 Challenge: Delhi High Court
Case Title : Cinda Engineering and Construction Private Limited v. CY Engineering India Private Limited
Case Number : O.M.P. (COMM) 67/2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 506
The Delhi High Court on 12 May held that procedural and case-management directions passed in arbitral proceedings, including orders refusing amendment of pleadings or additional document production, do not amount to an “interim award” under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 unless they finally determine substantive rights between the parties.
Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar dismissed a petition filed by Cinda Engineering and Construction Private Limited challenging an arbitral tribunal order that had refused to permit amendment of pleadings and production of additional documents in an ongoing arbitration against CY Engineering India Private Limited. He observed:
“The legislative architecture underlying the expression “award”, whether final or interim, necessarily postulates an adjudicatory determination possessing the attributes of conclusiveness, finality and enforceability in respect of a substantive component of the lis between the parties. Mere procedural consequences, however significant in their practical effect, do not by themselves elevate an interlocutory order to the status of an interim award.”
Case Title: Sarvesh Security Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Institute of Human Behavior Resource and Allied Sciences
Case Number : O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 557/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 516
The Delhi High Court has extended an arbitrator's mandate after an arbitral award had already been pronounced, holding that an extension cannot be refused merely because it would eliminate a ground to challenge the award.
Justice Avneesh Jhingan observed, “Merely as the outcome of the arbitration proceedings was known to the parties and with extension of the mandate one of the ground to challenge award under Section 34 of the Act may not survive, cannot be the consideration for rejection of the prayer for extension more so, on court being satisfied that sufficient cause exists.”
Arbitral Tribunal Need Not Seek MSME Council Approval Before Passing Final Award: Delhi High Court
Case Title : Dewan and Sons and Ors Vs Harsh International
Case Number: O.M.P. (COMM) 237/2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 526
The Delhi High Court has held that the MSMED Act and the Arbitration and Conciliation Act do not envisage any intermediary mechanism requiring an arbitral institution to submit a recommendatory report to a Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council for approval or confirmation.
Once a dispute is referred by the Council under the MSMED Act, the arbitral institution can independently render a final arbitral award, the Court held.
Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar dismissed a challenge to an award passed through the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC) in an MSME payment dispute between M/s Harsh International and M/s Dewan and Sons.
“Neither the MSMED Act nor the provisions of the A&C Act envisage any intermediate or hybrid procedure whereby the arbitral institution merely renders a recommendatory report or opinion to the Council for eventual approval, confirmation, or pronouncement of an award by the Council itself No such statutory requirement, procedure, or supervisory mechanism can be culled out either from the language of Section 18(3) of the MSMED Act or from the scheme of the A&C Act," the Court said.
Case Title : Hazel Mercantile Ltd. v Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.
Case Number : O.M.P. (Comm) 36/2023 & I.A. 1770/2023
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 537
The Delhi High Court on 22 April upheld an arbitral award arising from a supply contract between Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOCL) and Hazel Mercantile Ltd, where the arbitrator had granted nominal damages of Rs. 25,000.
Justice Avneesh Jhingan held that a mere price difference does not, by itself, establish proof of loss and declined to interfere under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. He observed:
“The quantification of the nominal damages is a discretion exercised by the arbitrator in the facts and circumstances of the case calling for no interference under Section 34 of the Act.”
Case Title : Prem Lata Surekha v Chakradhari Surekha
Case Number: FAO(OS) (COMM) 70/2025 & CM APPL. 24573/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 535
The Delhi High Court, in a family partnership dispute, has held that timelines introduced under the amended arbitration law for passing arbitral awards would not apply since arbitration had first been invoked before the amendment came into force.
The 2015 amendment introduced a 12-month deadline for arbitral tribunals to make an award from the date they entered upon reference, extendable by six months with parties' consent.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Madhu Jain held, “Under such circumstances, the arbitration clause having been invoked prior to the Amendment Act, 2015 coming into existence, the time limits stipulated under Section 29A of the Act would not be applicable to the facts of this case.”
The court dismissed an appeal filed by Prem Lata Surekha challenging an arbitral award in favour of Chakradhari Surekha. It also imposed costs of Rs 1 lakh on her, noting that she had rejected reasonable proposals for amicable resolution and that her conduct was not bona fide.
Re-Filing Delays In Commercial Cases Must Be Treated As Seriously As Filing Delays: Delhi High Court
Case Title: DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs INTEGRATED TECHNO SYSTEMS PVT LTD
Case Number: CM APPLs. 52264/2025, 52265/2025 & 52266/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 536
The Delhi High Court has dismissed an appeal by the Delhi Development Authority against a Commercial Court judgment upholding an arbitral award, refusing to condone delays in filing and re-filing the matter.
A Division Bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla underscored the need for strict adherence to timelines in commercial disputes arising from arbitral proceedings.
“It is also settled that, in commercial matters, delay in re-filing has also to be treated with nearly with same seriousness as delay in filing.” , It noted.
The Court also reiterated that administrative lethargy by government bodies cannot justify condonation of delay.
“Keeping in mind the standards laid down by the Supreme Court in the judgements cited supra, we regret that we are unable to regard the explanation as sufficient to condone the delay in filing the appeal.”It added.
Case Title : M/s Gowra Petrochem Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s Alfa Chem & Ors.
Case Number: OMP (ENF.) (COMM.) 215/2019
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 531
The Delhi High Court has refused to enforce an arbitral award, holding that the absence of a challenge to the award under Arbitration Act does not automatically make it enforceable if it is void for lack of jurisdiction.
Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar passed the ruling.
“In the present case, the position regarding unilateral appointment of the learned Sole Arbitrator is not even disputed by the Decree Holder. Equally undisputed is the absence of any express waiver in writing, as contemplated under the proviso to Section 12(5) of the A&C Act. Once the very constitution of the Arbitral Tribunal stands vitiated by reason of such unilateral appointment, the resultant Arbitral Award cannot be regarded as a legally enforceable adjudication in the eyes of law," the Court observed.
Arbitration Is Founded On Party Autonomy; Tribunal Bound By Contract: Delhi High Court
Case Title: MMTC Limited v. M/s Knowledge Infrastructure & Anr.
Case Number: FAO(OS)(COMM) 109/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 528
The Delhi High Court has set aside a Single Judge order that upheld an arbitral award directing MMTC to release ₹2.21 crore to Knowledge Infrastructure, holding that the arbitral tribunal ignored the express terms of the parties' contract
A Division Bench of Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Amit Mahajan ruled, “The Tripartite Agreement does not stipulate that the Appellant must first discharge liabilities attributable to Respondent No.1 and thereafter seek reimbursement through a separate indemnificatory mechanism. Thus, such an interpretation by the SB travels beyond the four corners of the Agreement.”
The Court also underscored that “arbitration proceedings are founded upon party autonomy” and that the arbitral tribunal, “being a creature of the contract, remains bound by the allocation of rights and liabilities consciously agreed upon between the parties.”
Case Title: M/s National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd. v. M/s Tarapore & Co., Engineers & Contractors & connected matter Tarapore & Company v. M/s National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd.
Case Number: OMP No. 408/2008 and CS (OS) No. 1499/2008
Citation :2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 488
The Delhi High Court has set aside an arbitral award directing Tarapore & Company to pay over ₹2.43 crore to National Thermal Power Corporation Limited in a dispute arising from the Farakka Super Thermal Power Project.
The court held that the arbitral process was vitiated by a reasonable apprehension of bias, as both the original and substitute arbitrators were serving NTPC officials, with the substitute arbitrator having been appointed by an interested NTPC official.
The Single Bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh noted that T. Shankarlingam, then a General Manager of NTPC, was initially appointed as arbitrator. After being elevated as Chairman and Managing Director of NTPC, he appointed another serving NTPC officer, G.J. Deshpande, as substitute arbitrator.
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) 487
The Delhi High Court has referred disputes between JioStar India Pvt. Ltd. and Absolute Legends Sports Pvt. Ltd. over the media and commercial rights of the Legends League Cricket Masters T20 tournament to arbitration. It held that arbitral proceedings should not be unduly delayed once parties before the court agree to arbitrate.
Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar appointed Senior Advocate Kamal Nijhawan as sole arbitrator. The court also directed that franchise fee collections and ticket revenues shall not be dealt with pending arbitration.
“It is further directed that the amounts received towards franchise fee as well as ticket collections, as articulated in paragraph 11 of the Affidavit dated 04.04.2026, shall not be dealt with by the Respondents in any manner whatsoever and shall remain subject to further orders to be passed by the learned Arbitrator. ” the court said.
Delhi High Court Upholds Licence Fee In Goyal MG Gases Dispute, Says Conduct Affirms Contract
Case Title : Goyal MG Gases Pvt. Ltd. v. Classic Motors Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : FAO(OS)(COMM) 172/2020 and FAO(OS)(COMM) 23/2021
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 490
The Delhi High Court on 12 May dismissed the appeals filed by Classic Motors Pvt. Ltd., holding that its continued occupation of the premises and execution of a subsequent addendum amounted to clear affirmation of the contract, not rescission, and therefore it could not later seek reduction of the agreed licence fee on grounds of alleged misrepresentation.
A Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Amit Mahajan upheld the Single Judge's decision restoring the contractual licence fee payable to Goyal MG Gases Pvt. Ltd. It observed:
“once a contracting party, after discovering the alleged misrepresentation, elects to continue under the contract and even enters into a further arrangement (the Addendum) on the same footing, its conduct is consistent with affirmance of the contract rather than rescission.”
Case Title : Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. v. GYT TPL Joint Venture
Case Number :O.M.P. (COMM) 202/2021
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 489
The Delhi High Court has recently upheld an arbitral award requiring Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd (DMRC) to reimburse contractor GYT TPL Joint Venture towards ₹3.47 crore in Environmental Compensation Charges (ECC), GST-related burdens and other additional costs.
These arose during the execution of the Delhi Metro Phase III Dilshad Garden–New Bus Adda corridor project, including during the extended contract period.
Justice Subramonium Prasad held that the Environmental Compensation Charges imposed during construction pursuant to Supreme Court directions to control pollution were not ordinary “taxes”, “duties” or “levies” covered by Clause C2.6(c) of the contract. This clause barred adjustment of the contract price for changes in taxes, duties or levies, including introduction of new ones.
"Since ECC was not a tax or levy but an additional charge imposed by the Apex Court, the clause C2.6(c) could not have been applicable. The Petitioner has not demonstrated that the said clause unequivocally and unambiguously bars such a claim irrespective of the cause or timing of the imposition. The interpretation adopted is not so irrational or implausible asto warrant interference.," the Court observed.
Case Title: U.P. Infraestate Pvt. Ltd. Through Liquidator Devinder Arora v. Rivaj Infratech Private Limited & Anr.
Case Number : FAO(OS) (COMM) 133/2023
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 486
Arbitral proceedings, once terminated, cannot be terminated a second time, the Delhi High Court has held while ruling that a party cannot treat an arbitrator's refusal to recall an earlier termination order as a fresh termination capable of challenge as an arbitral award.
“Arbitral proceedings can be terminated only once and once terminated they cannot again be terminated a second time. The dismissal of the recall application could not, therefore, be treated as a second order terminating the arbitral proceedings again relatable to Section 25 of the 1996 Act. It was clearly an order which was refusing to recall the order terminating the arbitral proceedings.,” the court held.
Case Title : Eureka Forbes Limited v. Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation
Case Number : O.M.P. (COMM) 502/2024
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 500
The Delhi High Court has recently held that while a procedural direction to proceed ex parte in arbitration is not challengeable under Section 34 at that stage, the outright rejection of a counterclaim for non-appearance amounts to a final determination of substantive rights.
Setting aside the arbitral tribunal's rejection of Eureka Forbes Limited's counterclaim against Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation (IRCTC), the Court restored it for adjudication.
Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar observed, “An order directing that proceedings continue ex parte is essentially procedural in nature and is intended to regulate the conduct and progression of arbitral proceedings. An order, by itself, neither adjudicates the substantive disputes between the parties nor determines any rights or liabilities finally and conclusively.”
Case Title Akash Katyal & Anr. v. PhysicsWallah Ltd. & Anr.
Case Number ARB.P. 674/2026
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 499
The Delhi High Court has, on Wednesday, referred a lease dispute between edtech company PhysicsWallah Ltd. and three other individuals to arbitration.
The court held that an arbitration clause, even if inelegantly drafted or lacking precision in its phraseology, can still constitute a valid arbitration agreement if it sufficiently reflects the parties' intention to arbitrate.
Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar appointed Advocate Mohini Bhat as the Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute valued at approximately ₹7 crore. The Court clarified that its role at the Section 11 stage is limited to a prima facie examination of the existence of an arbitration agreement rather than adjudicating contested factual or legal issues.
“This Court is of the view that, although Clause 26 is inelegantly drafted and lacks precision in its phraseology, the same sufficiently reflects the intention of the parties to resolve inter se disputes through arbitration,” the Bench held.
Delhi High Court Halts Arbitration in Ramprastha–Rhine Power Dispute Pending Contempt Ruling
Case Title : M/s Ramprastha Promoters Developers Pvt Ltd v. M/s Rhine Power Pvt Ltd
Case Number: LPA 118/2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 485
The Delhi High Court on 20 April upheld a Single Judge's order directing that arbitration proceedings between Ramprastha Promoters & Developers Pvt. Ltd. and investor Rhine Power Pvt. Ltd. remain stayed until the Court decides a pending contempt petition concerning alleged sale of fifteen flats in breach of a subsisting Section 9 injunction.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia dismissed Ramprastha's intra-court appeal and affirmed the direction deferring arbitration, holding that the contempt proceedings and arbitration were inextricably linked and could not proceed independently. It observed:
“Compelling continuation of the arbitration while the contempt petition remains pending would be manifestly unjust, as the outcome of the contempt proceedings would have a direct bearing on the nature of relief in arbitration. The issues arising are inextricably connected, and it is appropriate to await the decision in the contempt petition.”
Case Title : Sterlite Technologies Ltd. v. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited
Case Number :O.M.P. (COMM) 261/2023
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 482
The Delhi High Court on Monday dismissed Sterlite Technologies Ltd.'s challenge to an arbitral award that limited its payment to 25% of the quoted service cost for optical fiber cables laid through other empty ducts already laid in the same multi-duct trench under a defence telecom project.
Justice Avneesh Jhingan held that Clause 28(iii) of the purchase order independently governed the issue, regardless of the dispute over the applicability of the tender clause dealing with government ducts.
“Clause 28 (iii) of the PO without reference to the clarification unambiguously stated that twenty-five percent of the quoted rate of service shall be paid for laying cable through the existing ducts,” the court said.
Case Title: Sapphire Media Limited v. NBCC Services Limited & Anr.
Case Number: W.P.(C) 4147/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 481
The Delhi High Court has set aside the disqualification of a company's technical bid for interior and fit-out work at the India International Arbitration Centre (IIAC), holding that “hyper-technical” objections relating to solvency certificates cannot defeat the objective of a fair and competitive tender process.
A division bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Amit Mahajan observed that the exclusion of bidders on a “myopic view or on hyper-technical grounds” would undermine the very purpose of public tendering, which is to maximise public value through a fair, transparent and competitive process.
Pre-Arbitration Mutual Discussion Clauses Are Directory, Not Mandatory: Delhi High Court
Case Title Orix Corporation India Ltd. v. Peters Surgical India Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number ARB.P. 119/2026
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 478
The Delhi High Court on 7 May held that failure to engage in pre-arbitral mutual discussions cannot bar invocation of an arbitration clause or appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, since clauses requiring parties to first attempt amicable settlement are directory and not mandatory.
Justice Mini Pushkarna appointed Advocate Isha Bhalla as sole arbitrator to adjudicate disputes between Orix Corporation India Ltd. and Peters Surgical India Pvt. Ltd. arising out of a Master Lease Agreement dated 23 December 2023 relating to a Range Rover Velar. The Single-Judge Bench observed:
“As regards the contention of the respondent with regard to mutual discussion not having taken place between the parties, it is no more res integra that such provisions, for the purposes of mutual discussion, which are pre-arbitral mechanisms, are only directory in nature, and such covenant in a clause of an agreement is not mandatory in nature. Therefore, merely because mutual discussion between the parties has not taken place, it shall not be an impediment for the purposes of invoking the Arbitration Clause or for appointment of an Arbitrator.”
Case Title: Parveen Kapoor & Ors. and Omaxe Limited
Case Number: FAO (OS) (COMM) 50/2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 459
The Delhi High Court has upheld an order setting aside an arbitral award that granted buyers of a commercial unit about ₹1.05 lakh per month as assured returns from Omaxe Limited, after finding that the arbitrator had granted relief on a claim that was no longer part of the arbitration.
Explaining why, a Division Bench of Justices V. Kameswar Rao and Vinod Kumar held that the arbitrator “erred in awarding the AMR as compensation as it was beyond his jurisdiction,” noting that once the claim was withdrawn, “it goes out of the hands of the Arbitrator” and cannot be reintroduced in arbitral proceedings.
Case Title : SPICEJET LIMITED vs KAL AIRWAYS PVT LTD & ORS
Case Number : O.M.P. (COMM) 42/2019
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 458
The Delhi High Court on Monday dismissed review petitions filed by SpiceJet Ltd and its promoter Ajay Singh, refusing to modify its March 18, 2026 order and grant further time, thereby requiring compliance with directions to deposit ₹144.51 crore in an arbitration dispute with Kal Airways Pvt. Ltd.
Justice Subramonium Prasad held that subsequent developments such as the outbreak of hostilities in West Asia cannot be used to avoid compliance with binding judicial directions or as a ground for review.
“The hostilities which broke out in February-March, 2026 cannot be used to the advantage of the Review Petitioners and at the cost of repetition, it is made clear that this Court was not prepared to accept the offer given by the Review Petitioners for deposit of the title deeds of the Spicejet‟s Property in lieu of the arbitral amount as in the opinion of this Court, the said offer could not be a proper compliance of the Orders of the Apex Court.”
Unenforceable Foreign Arbitral Award Does Not Extinguish Original Cause Of Action: Delhi High Court
Case Title : Campos Brothers Farms v. Matru Bhumi Supply Chain Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Case Number : RFA(OS)(COMM) 3/2025'
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 465
The Delhi High Court has reiterated that a foreign arbitral award that has been found unenforceable in India does not extinguish the original civil claim between parties, while restoring a recovery suit filed by a U.S.-based almond supplier.
A Division Bench of Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Amit Mahajan held, “the cause of action for recovery of the amount claimed does not cease to exist merely because a foreign arbitral award has been passed, particularly when such award has been held to be unenforceable in India. An unenforceable foreign award cannot, by itself, extinguish the underlying civil cause of action, as such award has failed to secure recovery of the amount in favour of the claimant"
Case Title: MBL Infrastructure Ltd v. M/s Pradeep Colonisers and Suppliers Pvt Ltd
Case Number: O.M.P. (COMM) 469/2025 & connected matters
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 468
The Delhi High Court has held that claims that are not part of an approved insolvency resolution plan cannot later be revived through arbitration.
Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar observed:
“Once the corporate insolvency resolution process attains finality within the statutory framework contemplated under the IBC, the claims of all stakeholders stand crystallized and are thereafter governed exclusively by the terms of the Resolution Plan. Such claims cannot be revived, re-agitated, or pursued through proceedings outside the insolvency mechanism. The contrary view adopted by the learned Arbitral Tribunal, which permits the resurrection of such claims in arbitral proceedings, runs counter to the legislative intent and the settled legal position, and is therefore liable to be set aside."
Arbitration Clause Signed By Only One Party Invalid, Award Unenforceable: Delhi High Court
Case Title : Matsya Fincap Pvt Ltd Versus Govind Lal
Case Number: EFA(COMM) 8/2024
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 466
The Delhi High Court on 5 May held that an arbitration clause contained in a document signed by only one party does not constitute a valid arbitration agreement under Section 7 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, in the absence of material demonstrating mutual consent to arbitrate.
A Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Amit Mahajan further held that an arbitral award founded on such a defective agreement is a nullity and incapable of execution and upheld the Executing Court's order refusing enforcement of the award. It held:
“It is not in dispute that the said acknowledgment letter bears the signature of the Respondent but does not bear the signature of the Appellant. Therefore, it does not satisfy the requirement of a 'document signed by the parties' under Section 7(4)(a) of the A&C Act.”
Case Title : Sunder Lal Gupta v. M/s Sahyog Hospitality & Ors.
Case Number: OMP (ENF.) (COMM.) 284/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 455
The Delhi High Court has held that interim orders passed by an arbitral tribunal cannot be independently enforced in cases where they stand subsumed into a final arbitral award covering the same subject matter, holding that such directions must thereafter be enforced only under the statutory framework governing arbitral awards.
Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar dismissed an enforcement petition filed by Sunder Lal Gupta, ruling that the interim direction requiring Sahyog Hospitality to deposit 81.25% of monthly mesne profits could not be executed once it stood merged into the final award.
“Where the directions contained in an interim order are effectively subsumed into the operative part of the Final Award, the enforcement of such directions must thereafter be governed by the regime applicable to the enforcement of arbitral awards. Consequently, the provisions of Sections 34(3) and 36(1) of the A&C Act must be allowed to operate in their full play, without being circumvented through parallel enforcement proceedings under Section 17(2) of the A&C Act," the bench observed.
Arbitrator Cannot “Conjure” Mesne Profit Figure Solely On “Guesswork”: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Radiance Infracon and Developers Pvt. Ltd. v GLS Infratech Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : FAO(OS) (COMM) 156/2024, CM APPL. 43047/2024
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 472
The Delhi High Court on 13 April held that an arbitral tribunal cannot award mesne profits solely on “guesswork” without any foundational material or reasoning supporting the quantification and clarified that while exact proof of unliquidated damages is not necessary, the award must disclose a rational basis linking the material on record to the amount awarded.
A Division Bench of Justices Om Prakash Shukla and C. Hari Shankar upheld an order setting aside the arbitral award to the extent it granted mesne profits to Radiance Infracon and Developers Pvt. Ltd. against GLS Infratech Pvt. Ltd. and dismissed the appeal filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. It observed:
“While exactitude in proof of damages is not insisted upon, the adjudicatory process must nevertheless disclose a rational nexus between the material available and figure ultimately awarded or atleast some line of reasoning in mind of the learned Arbitrator to justify the reasonability of the figure.”
Delhi High Court Partly Sets Aside Award Denying FDR Interest Despite Invalid PBG Invocation
Case Title: Jaksons Developers (P) Ltd Versus Delhi Development Authority
Case Number: O.M.P. (COMM) 349/2023
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 467
The Delhi High Court has held that the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) cannot retain interest accrued on a fixed deposit created from a Performance Bank Guarantee (PBG) amount after an arbitral tribunal held that DDA was not entitled to invoke the PBG.
The PBG had been furnished by Jaksons Developers in connection with allotment of a commercial plot by DDA for construction of a hotel project for the 2010 Commonwealth Games.
Justice Avneesh Jhingan said:
“The realised amount along with interest accrued on FDR was subject to outcome of the arbitration proceedings.”
The court observed that the arbitrator, after holding that DDA could not have invoked or encashed the PBG, had no basis to segregate the principal amount from the interest accrued on the FDR.
Case Title : The Atlas Electric Industries Pvt Ltd v. M/s Polotrips India (P) Ltd & Anr.
Case Number: ARB.P. 1742/2025 with O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 271/2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 473
The Delhi High Court on 4 May held that a party described only as a “Confirming Party” or merely having signatory status in an agreement cannot invoke the arbitration clause unless the contract expressly grants such a right.
Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar dismissed petitions filed by The Atlas Electric Industries Pvt. Ltd. seeking interim protection and appointment of an arbitrator in a dispute concerning an industrial plot in Haryana. He held:
“The arbitration clause, in express terms, does not include the Confirming Party within the category of parties entitled to invoke arbitral proceedings. Once the explicit stipulations of the Agreement do not contemplate or confer such a right upon the Confirming Party, it cannot, by way of imputation or implication, be contended that a mere signatory status to the Agreement would, in and of itself, suffice to vest the Confirming Party with the entitlement to invoke the arbitration clause.”
Bennett Coleman Withdraws Delhi HC Plea Against Lord's Mark Share Listing Following Settlement
Case Title: Bennett Coleman and Co. Ltd. v. Lord's Mark Industries Limited & Ors.
Case Number : O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 241/2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 583
Bennett Coleman and Co. Ltd. (BCCL), publisher of The Times of India, has withdrawn its petition before the Delhi High Court challenging the proposed listing and commencement of trading of shares of Lord's Mark Industries Ltd.
The withdrawal came after Lord's Mark acknowledged BCCL's entitlement to 10,28,483 equity shares and agreed to place its claim before the Monitoring Committee supervising implementation of the resolution plan through which Kratos Energy and Infrastructure Ltd. was merged with Lord's Mark
Justice Amit Sharma permitted withdrawal of the petition after Lord's Mark Industries placed on record a communication dated May 30, 2026 recording the understanding reached between the parties.
In the communication, Lord's Mark stated:
“LMIL now confirms and acknowledges the entitlement BCCL to 10,28,483 equity shares in the resulting Company LMIL in pursue of warrant conversion notice at agreed value of Rs. 158/- (Rupees Hundred Fifty Eight Only).”
Case Title: M/s Ramacivil India Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. Central Public Works Department & Connected Matters
Case Number : ARB.P. 1787/2025 with O.M.P.(I)(COMM.) 35/2025, O.M.P.(I)(COMM.) 447/2025 and O.M.P.(I)(COMM.) 484/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 575
The Delhi High Court has reiterated that arbitration is founded on consent and party autonomy, holding that an entity cannot be impleaded in arbitral proceedings merely because it is the ultimate beneficiary of a project.
The Court set aside orders that had added IIM Jammu as a party to arbitration-related proceedings arising from disputes between Ramacivil India Construction Pvt. Ltd. and the Central Public Works Department (CPWD) over construction of the permanent campus of IIM Jammu at Jagti, Jammu.
Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar held that IIM Jammu was not a signatory to the contract or the arbitration agreement between Ramacivil and CPWD. The Court held that the circumstances relied upon by IIM Jammu, including its status as the ultimate beneficiary, its funding of the project and its participation in review meetings and supervision of the works, did not justify its impleadment.
The Court observed: “This Court is unable to accept that the status of an 'ultimate beneficiary' can constitute the governing test for impleadment in arbitral proceedings. Arbitration, being fundamentally consensual in nature, cannot be enlarged to include entities merely because they derive a benefit or possess an institutional interest in the project.”
Draft Agreements, WhatsApp Chats Alone Cannot Create Binding Arbitration Agreement: Delhi High Court
Case Title : Midpoint Commodeal Private Limited v. Fidatocity Homes Private Limited & Ors.
Case Number : O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 30/2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 580
The Delhi High Court has held that draft agreements, WhatsApp exchanges and prolonged commercial negotiations cannot, by themselves, create a binding arbitration agreement unless the parties have clearly and finally agreed on all essential terms of their arrangement.
A Bench of Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar dismissed a petition filed by Midpoint Commodeal Private Limited seeking protection of ₹15.30 crore allegedly invested in the "Sky Palazzos" real estate project in Gurugram.
“Mere negotiations, exchanged communications, draft agreements, tentative proposals, preliminary understandings, or ongoing commercial discussions may at best indicate an intention to negotiate or explore a prospective business relationship; however, such circumstances do not, by themselves, mature into a legally enforceable contract unless the parties demonstrably arrive at a final, unequivocal, and binding meeting of minds on all essential terms of the arrangement,” the Court observed.
The Court further observed, “Similarly, the WhatsApp exchanges and other communications relied upon by the Petitioner do not establish any unequivocal assent or concluded agreement between the parties. At best, the said communications reflect ongoing commercial negotiations and attempts to arrive at mutually acceptable terms. They do not disclose any final consensus on the essential contractual terms, much less any clear and binding agreement to arbitrate disputes.”
Delhi High Court Rejects Oracle's Challenge To Award Refusing Transfer Of 'Exadata.in' Domain
Case Title : Oracle International Corporation v. CIS IT Solutions Pvt Ltd
Case Number: O.M.P. (COMM) 232/2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 564
The Delhi High Court has refused to interfere with an arbitral award rejecting Oracle International Corporation's bid to secure the transfer of the domain name “www.exadata.in”. The court held that the arbitrator had arrived at a plausible factual conclusion that the threshold necessary for establishing bad-faith registration or use under the .IN Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (INDRP) had not been met.
Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar held that similarity between Oracle's registered “EXADATA” trademark and the disputed domain name was not, by itself, sufficient to justify the transfer of the domain name.
“The inquiry envisaged under the INDRP framework is, therefore, neither singular nor mechanical in nature, but is inherently contextual, fact-sensitive, and dependent upon an overall evaluation of the surrounding circumstances and evidentiary material placed on record.”, the court observed.
Withdrawn Civil Suit Does Not Bar Invocation Of Arbitration Clause: Delhi High Court
Case Title : VE Commercial Vehicles v. M/s Singh Enterprises
Case Number : ARB.P. 1778/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 615
The Delhi High Court has recently held that the filing of an earlier civil suit does not bar a party from invoking an arbitration clause where the suit was subsequently withdrawn.
The court observed, “Mere fact that earlier a civil suit had been filed, would be no bar to invoke arbitration in terms of the Arbitration Clause, especially, when the said suit had been withdrawn.”
Justice Mini Pushkarna made the observation while appointing Justice (Retd.) Kurian Joseph, former judge of the Supreme Court, as the Presiding Arbitrator in disputes between VE Commercial Vehicles Ltd. (VECV) and its former dealer, Singh Enterprises.
Case Title : Air Force Naval Housing Board v M/s NG Constructions
Case Number : O.M.P. (COMM) 497/2022, I.A. 21446/2022 & I.A. 31600/2025, O.M.P. (COMM) 116/2023
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 614
On 26 May, the Delhi High Court reiterated that waiver of the applicability of Section 12(5) read with the Seventh Schedule of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act cannot be inferred from conduct and must arise only from an express written agreement between the parties.
A Bench of Justice Avneesh Jhingan set aside an arbitral award in a dispute between a developer and the Air Force Naval Housing Board (AFNHB) concerning construction of a residential complex. It observed:
“The unilateral appointment in absence of an express agreement in writing between the parties to waive applicability of Section 12(5) of the Act is void ab initio. The filing of the statement of claim or participation in the arbitral proceedings cannot be construed as waiver under the proviso to Section 12(5) of the Act. The unilateral appointment of the arbitrator can be objected to for the first time under Section 34 of the Act.”
Defendant Cannot Invoke Arbitration Clause After Participating In Trial Without Objection: Delhi HC
Case Title : M/s Amber Electrotech Ltd. & Anr. v. M/s Dollar Security & Support Services
Case Number: RFA No. 242/2020, CM APPL. 25169/2020 & CM APPL. 28465/2020
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 605
The Delhi High Court on 3 June reiterated that a defendant who files a written statement and participates in the trial without seeking reference to arbitration at the appropriate stage cannot later invoke an arbitration clause to challenge the maintainability of the suit.
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna upheld a recovery decree of Rs. 2.91 lakh in favour of Dollar Security & Support Services against Amber Electrotech Ltd., finding that the company had never disputed the outstanding invoice dues and had merely raised technical objections and theft-related claims to resist payment. The Bench held:
“However, here was the case where the Written Statement was duly filed by the Appellant and thereafter, participated in the entire trial. Therefore, it is clearly evident that despite there being an Arbitration Clause, the Appellant had participated and submitted to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. This objection was also rightly dismissed by the learned District Judge.”
Delhi HC Refers Morgan Securities–BPL Post-Award Dispute To Arbitration, Appoints Justice U.U. Lalit
Case Title: Morgan Securities and Credits Pvt. Ltd. v. BPL Limited & Ors.
Case Number: O.M.P.(I)(COMM.) 173/2026 and ARB.P. 835/2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 613
On 29 May, the Delhi High Court referred the disputes between Morgan Securities and Credits Pvt. Ltd. and BPL Limited to arbitration, appointed former Chief Justice of India Justice U.U. Lalit as sole arbitrator, and continued interim protection restraining alteration of BPL's assets, management, and control structure pending arbitration.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar held that alleged post-award breaches arising from subsequent transactions can give rise to a fresh and independent arbitrable dispute, even though the earlier arbitral award had attained finality after the Supreme Court dismissed BPL Limited's challenge in 2025. He observed:
“this Court finds that each of the above transactions and findings by the Petitioner constitutes a distinct act, alleged to be in breach of Clause 6 of the contractual framework, in respect of which, Arbitration was invoked vide Notice dated 20.12.2025. The present invocation cannot be characterised as a re-agitation of disputes already adjudicated, being in response to subsequent and independent acts of alleged contractual violation. While the agreement remains unchanged, the disputes, being founded on fresh transactions, are clearly distinct and capable of independent reference to Arbitration.”
Case Title: Conscient Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. Mr. Mahesh Kapoor & Anr.
Case Number : O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 138/2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 611
The Delhi High Court has recently held that mere invocation of statutory restrictions on specific performance cannot, by itself, justify refusal of interim protective relief in arbitration proceedings.
It observed that such objections must be clearly established before a court can decline measures aimed at preserving the subject matter of a dispute pending arbitration.
Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar made the observation while granting interim protection to Conscient Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. in a dispute concerning a proposed 6.76-acre development project in Delhi's Aya Nagar.
“This court is of the considered opinion that once the statutory framework itself favours enforcement of contractual obligations, the exceptions restraining such enforcement cannot be expansively construed at the threshold stage so as to defeat the very subject matter of arbitration. Mere invocation of Sections 14 or 41 of the SRA, without a clear and unimpeachable demonstration that the case squarely falls within the statutory prohibitions, cannot by itself compel the Court, at a prima facie stage, to decline protective interim measures.”, the court ruled.
Case Title: Mr. Pathan Imrankhan Zafarullakhan & Anr. v. Microsoft Corporation
Case Number: O.M.P. (COMM) 223/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 610
The Delhi High Court has set aside an arbitral award that directed the transfer of the domain name "exceltotally.in" to Microsoft Corporation. The Court held that confusing similarity with Microsoft's "EXCEL" trademark, by itself, was not enough to establish bad faith under the .IN Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (INDRP).
Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar observed that the arbitrator had not independently examined whether the registrants intentionally sought to deceive users, exploit Microsoft's goodwill, derive an unfair commercial benefit, or otherwise acted in bad faith before ordering transfer of the domain name.
“Mere incorporation of a prior trademark within a domain name, absent surrounding circumstances evidencing intentional deception, diversion, or dishonest commercial exploitation, would not by itself satisfy the threshold contemplated under Clause 4(c) of the INDRP.”
Delhi High Court Appoints Former SC Judge Arun Mishra Arbitrator In NHIDCL Contract Dispute
Case Title : National Highways Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited v Sadhguru Engineers and Allied Services Pvt. Ltd & Others
Case Number: FAO(OS) (COMM) 83/2026, CM APPL. 21826/2026, CM APPL. 21827/2026, CM APPL. 21828/2026, CM APPL. 21829/2026 & CM APPL. 28908/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 595
The Delhi High Court on May 19 dismissed an appeal filed by National Highways Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. (NHIDCL) against an order restraining the encashment of bank guarantees furnished by a contractor.
With the consent of both sides, the court also appointed former Supreme Court judge Justice Arun Mishra as the sole arbitrator to adjudicate disputes arising from a highway project in Assam.
A division bench of Justices Dinesh Mehta and Vinod Kumar upheld a February 24 order passed by a single judge in favour of Sadhguru Engineers and Allied Services Pvt. Ltd., which had been awarded the balance work for four-laning of National Highway-37 on the Jorhat-Jhanji stretch.
The bench observed:
“The opening part of the bank guarantees in question may give an impression that the same are unconditional but if we peruse the complete guarantees, it clearly suggests that such unconditional bank guarantees can be invoked only in existence of certain situations or contingencies. According to us, unless the pre-defined contingencies in the bank guarantees are in existence, the appellant cannot justifiably invoke the bank guarantees.”
Partial Settlement On Interest In Arbitration Not Binding On All Claims: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Atlanta Infra Assets Limited v NHAI
Case Number : O.M.P. (COMM) 152/2022, O.M.P. (COMM) 243/2022
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 622
The Delhi High Court on 26 May held that a partial settlement reached during arbitral proceedings fixing interest for specific claims cannot bind all pending claims and counter-claims, and the Arbitral Tribunal retains full discretion under Section 31(7)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
A Bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh dismissed cross petitions under Section 34 of the Act arising from a dispute between Atlanta Infra Assets Ltd. and the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI), and upheld the arbitral award. It observed:
“As regards the argument of Atlanta for applying separate rates of interest on claims and counterclaims is concerned, the said argument is misconceived. On 24.02.2020, the parties agreed to the rates of interest for Counter Claim Nos. 2 and 6 only, the same is not an agreement of parties qua the binding rate of interest for all claims and counter claims. Hence, the AT was very much within its discretion to award interest at the rate of 10%”.
Delhi High Court Restrains Ex-Franchisee From Using Toni & Guy Brand Pending Arbitration
Case Title : M/s Profile India International v. M/s SS Brothers Associates & Anr.
Case Number: O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 224/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 616
On 26 May, the Delhi High Court granted interim protection under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and restrained a former franchisee from using the “Toni & Guy” trademarks and associated intellectual property pending arbitration.
Justice Mini Pushkarna held that a valid arbitration agreement governed the dispute and protected the franchisor's brand rights during the pendency of proceedings and allowed the petition filed by Profile India International. The Bench observed:
“Considering the submissions made before this Court, till the next date of hearing, the respondents are restrained from operating any Salon bearing the mark 'Toni & Guy' or using the operating manual, system, 'Toni & Guy' Network, license rights or any other trade name, logos, devices or insignia, associated with the petitioner's mark, or from using in any manner, any sign board, or stationary, bills, etc., with the brand name/trademark, i.e., 'Toni & Guy'.”
Delhi HC Grants Interim Protection To Orange Orbit LLP in Rs. 18.6 Cr. Dispute With HostBooks Ltd.
Case Title: Orange Orbit LLP v. HostBooks Limited & Ors.
Case Number: O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 227/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 617
The Delhi High Court recently granted interim protection to Orange Orbit LLP in its Rs. 18.6 crore investment dispute with HostBooks Limited in a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Justice Mini Pushkarna allowed the petition and restrained HostBooks and its founders (Respondent Nos. 2 and 3) from alienating or creating further encumbrances over its assets, business, software, intellectual property and securities pending arbitration till the next date of hearing on 7 October 2026. The Bench held:
“The respondents, whether by themselves, their directors, officers, agents, nominees, assigns or any person claiming through or under them, are restrained from selling, transferring, alienating, disposing of, parting with possession of, or creating any further encumbrance, charge, lien, security interest, pledge or third-party right over, the assets, undertaking, business, software and intellectual property of the respondent no. 1”
Case Title: National Highways Authority of India v. Progressive Constructions Limited
Case Number: FAO(OS)(COMM) 206/2023
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 625
The Delhi High Court on Thursday set aside an arbitral award granting ₹126.77 crore to a highway contractor towards costs and confiscated assets in an Assam road-widening project. The Court held that the arbitral tribunal failed to consider extension-of-time decisions that had rejected those claims.
A Division Bench of Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Vinod Kumar, however, upheld awards totalling ₹35.90 crore towards work executed under the contract and loss of profit.
The court allowed an appeal filed by the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) against an award in favour of Progressive Constructions Limited, which was engaged to widen the Bijni–West Bengal Border section of NH-31C in Assam.
Case Title : Chander Mohan Lall v. DLF Home Developers Limited
Case Number : FAO(OS)(COMM) 100/2019 & CM APPLN. 2389/2020
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 626
The Delhi High Court has recently dismissed a senior advocate's appeal seeking higher compensation for the delayed possession of four commercial office units purchased from DLF Home Developers Limited.
A Division Bench of Justices V. Kameswar Rao and Vinod Kumar upheld compensation at ₹25 per sq. ft. per month. The Court rejected the plea to enhance it to ₹200 per sq. ft. per month on the basis of alleged market rental rates.
"The interpretation given by the learned Arbitrator to Clause 11.4... has been accepted by the learned Single Judge. We do not find the interpretation given by the learned Arbitrator to be unreasonable or perverse for us to interfere in this appeal," the bench ruled.
Delhi High Court Restrains NCERT From Invoking ₹6.09 Crore Bank Guarantee Against Paper Supplier
Case Title : M/s Bafna Global Venture Pvt. Ltd. v. National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT) & Anr.
Case Number : O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 250/2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 639
The Delhi High Court has restrained the National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT) from taking coercive steps to invoke a ₹6.09 crore bank guarantee furnished by a paper supplier.
It also directed that no coercive action be taken pursuant to NCERT's order terminating the supply contract and debarring the company for two years, until the next hearing on July 20.
Justice Mini Pushkarna passed the interim order in an arbitration petition filed by Bafna Global Venture Pvt. Ltd. challenging NCERT's June 22 order. After considering the company's submissions, the court held that the matter required consideration.
Observing so, the court directed, "Considering the submissions made before this Court, it is directed that no coercive action shall be taken for invoking the Bank Guarantee bearing no. 0005NDDG00220426 dated 10th December, 2025 amounting to Rs. 6,09,20,000/-, in pursuance to the Order dated 22nd June, 2026, invoking the Bank Guarantee, till the next date of hearing."
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.
Case Title : Accurate Thermal Spray Private Limited v. SKF Engineering and Lubrication India Private Limited
Case Number : R/First Appeal No. 4652 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(GUJ) 51
The Gujarat High Court has upheld the setting aside of a Rs 25 crore arbitral award in a dispute over a failed industrial project, holding that the tribunal had effectively rewritten the contract by imposing an obligation to provide an approach road that was never agreed upon, while fastening liability despite the claimant not having set up the factory, which was a prerequisite for triggering the respondent's obligations.
It further found that the arbitral tribunal had travelled beyond the contract by relying on email exchanges and surrounding circumstances to conclude that SKF had agreed to provide access to the claimant's land, even though the written agreement contained no such clause. “By holding that the respondent had agreed to provide approach road to the claimant and non providing of the same had obstructed / prevented the claimant from setting up the factory, i.e. from performing the contractual obligation of the claimant, the learned Arbitrator has thrust upon a new liability upon the respondent unilaterally as against its intention. That being the case, it is clear that the award had created a new contract for the parties on unilateral intention of the claimant against the intention of the respondent. A fundamental principle of justice has been breached by unilateral addition or alteration of the contract foisted upon an unwilling party,” the Court said.
Case Title: Kirloskar Pneumatic Company Limited v. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited
Case Number: R/Special Civil Application No. 4277 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(GUJ) 64
The Gujarat High Court on 8 May held that the juridical “seat” of arbitration cannot be shifted merely because arbitral proceedings were conducted elsewhere or because the arbitral tribunal recorded such a statement in procedural minutes, where the contract required any variation to be made only through a formal written amendment.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice D.N. Ray upheld a Commercial Court order refusing to shift the arbitration seat from Ankleshwar to Ahmedabad in a dispute between Kirloskar Pneumatic Company Limited and Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited (ONGC). The Court observed:
“For shifting of 'juridical seat', there may be a mutual agreement of the parties, however, such an agreement or consent shall be express in writing, clearly understood and agreed by the parties. As found by us that there is no such mutual agreement or consent of the parties in writing, expressly and clearly understood and agreed by them, it cannot be held that the statement recorded by the learned Arbitrator in paragraph No. '5' of the preliminary arbitral meeting dated 07.10.2021 is the mutual agreement of the parties for shifting of the jurisdictional “seat” of arbitration from 'Ankleshwar' to 'Ahmedabad'.”
Gujarat High Court Temporarily Halts Arbitration Over Vapi Lakes Lease Agreements
Case Title : Vapi Municipal Corporation (Erstwhile Vapi Nagarpalika) v. Shashijit Infra Projects Limited & Anr.
Case Number: R/Special Civil Application Nos. 7763 of 2026, 7765 of 2026 and 7766 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(GUJ) 67
The Gujarat High Court on Monday directed that no further proceedings be conducted in arbitration proceedings between Vapi Municipal Corporation and Shashijit Infra Projects Limited arising from lease agreements relating to Lakhamdev Lake, Dungra Lake, and Chala Lake in Vapi. The direction will remain in force until the next hearing before the Court on June 18.
Justice L.S. Pirzada passed the order while issuing notice in petitions filed by the Municipal Corporation challenging the continuation of the arbitration proceedings.
The court observed,
"As Special Civil Application no. 157 of 2026 is pending before this Court and the Civil Application no. 1 of 2026 in Special Civil Application no. 130 of 2026 moved by the respondent no. 1 is also pending and the next date of hearing is fixed on 18.06.2026, the respondent no. 2 may not proceed with the arbitration proceedings and not pass any order till the next date of hearing."
Case Title : NHAI v Patel Karsanbhai and Others
Case Number : R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2086 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(GUJ)73
The Gujarat High Court on 8 June held that an arbitral award determining compensation under the National Highways Act, 1956 cannot be interfered with under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 where the Arbitrator has assessed market value in accordance with Section 26 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 based on the evidence on record.
A Bench of Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice D.N. Ray dismissed an appeal filed by the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) and upheld the Commercial Court's order refusing to set aside the arbitral award in favour of Patel Karsanbhai and other landowners, which determined compensation by adopting the highest jantri rate. The judges observed:
“Further Section 26 of the Act of 2013 provides various criteria in assessment and determination of the market value of the land, one of which is jantri value. And the factual inquiry has been made by the Arbitrator in accordance with the provisions of Section 26 of the Act' 2013 based on the material collected by him and the evidence adduced by the parties, which cannot be re-examined by this Court by re-appreciation of evidence, as it would hit on the face of scope of judicial scrutiny under Sections 34 and 37 of the Act' 1996.”
Works Contract Disputes Must Go To Statutory Tribunal, Not Private Arbitration: Gujarat High Court
Case Title : M/s. Soham Consultancy Services v. Limbdi Nagarpalika
Case Number : Petition Under Arbitration Act No. 71 of 2024
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(GUJ)74
The Gujarat High Court on 19 June held that payment disputes arising from agreements which are, in substance, public works contracts cannot be referred to private arbitration under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and must instead be adjudicated by the Gujarat Public Works Contracts Disputes Arbitration Tribunal under the Public Works Contracts Disputes Arbitration Tribunal Act, 1992.
Justice D.N. Ray dismissed a Section 11 petition filed by Soham Consultancy Services seeking appointment of an arbitrator in its Rs. 38.96 lakh payment dispute with Limbdi Nagarpalika. The Bench held:
"A conjoint reading of the 'scope of work' and the understanding of the petitioner as to its own scope of work as reflected in the pleadings before this Court leave no manner of doubt that the amount which is sought to be claimed from the respondent-Nagarpalika cannot be simply termed as 'fees' but rather as 'consideration' for a works contract."
Case Title : Pandya Naresh Chandra Through POA Gaurang Bhavsar v. Shalin Infrastructure & Ors.
Case Number : R/Special Civil Application No. 558 of 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(GUJ)75
On 22 June, the Gujarat High Court held that non-production of a Power of Attorney in arbitral proceedings is a curable procedural defect and cannot, by itself, justify rejection of a claim or termination of arbitration proceedings.
Justice Niral R. Mehta allowed a writ petition filed by a homebuyer and set aside an arbitral tribunal's order rejecting his claim against Shalin Infrastructure, restoring the arbitral proceedings. The Bench observed:
“The jurisdiction vested in an arbitral tribunal is intended to facilitate adjudication of disputes on their substantive merits and not to defeat legitimate claims by resorting to hyper-technical procedural objections, particularly where the defect is capable of rectification. In that view of the matter, the rejection of the claim solely on account of non-production of the Power of Attorney amounts to an exercise of jurisdiction not sanctioned by the provisions of the Act and is therefore liable to be characterised as jurisdictionally erroneous.”
Karnataka High Court
Case Title : Raghavendra & Anr. v. Vijaykumar
Case Number : Civil Misc. Petition No. 100019 of 2024
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 9
The Karnataka High Court has held that an arbitration clause contained in a partnership reconstitution deed cannot be enforced b a person who has not signed the deed, and that in such circumstances, the court cannot appoint an arbitrator under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Justice Lalitha Kanneganti made the observation in an order dated January 7 while hearing a petition filed by two outgoing partners of Shree Raghavendra Industries, seeking appointment of an arbitrator under an arbitration clause contained in a reconstitution deed dated March 18, 2023.
The Court held that a reconstitution deed cannot bind a party who has not signed it. As there was no valid arbitration agreement, the Court declined to appoint an arbitrator under Section 11 of the Act and dismissed the petition.
Case Title: Qatar Holding LLC v. Byju Raveendran
Case Number: AP.EFA No.1 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 7
The Karnataka High Court passed an ad-interim order attaching 17,891,289 equity shares held by Beeaar Investco Pte. Ltd. and beneficially owned by Byju Raveendran in Aakash Educational Services Ltd. The Single Bench of Justice Sunil Dutt Yadav said the direction was necessary to prevent the interim injunction granted on September 1, 2025, from being rendered ineffective due to subsequent developments and to safeguard the beneficial interest linked to the award debtor. Taking note of the submissions and the earlier restraint order, Justice Yadav held that an ad-interim arrangement was warranted at this stage.
Affirming the earlier restraint, the court directed that alienation of 17,891,289 shares held by Beeaar Investco Pte. Ltd., insofar as the beneficial interest of the award debtor in Aakash Educational Services Ltd. is concerned, would stand protected by an order of attachment. The court clarified that the attachment is a provisional arrangement, subject to final orders to be passed on the interlocutory application. Notices were directed to be issued to Beeaar Investco Pte. Ltd. and Aakash Educational Services Ltd., and the matter has been listed for further hearing after two weeks.
Right To Seek Arbitration Ends Once Written Statement Stage Is Closed: Karnataka High Court
Case Title : M/s Bhagyalakshmi Homes LLP v. Sulekha Verma and Ors
Case Number : Commercial Appeal No.618 of 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 21
The Karnataka High Court has reiterated that a defendant cannot seek reference to arbitration under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 after its right to file a written statement in a commercial suit has been closed, dismissing an appeal filed by real estate developer Bhagyalakshmi Homes LLP.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C.M. Poonacha upheld the Commercial Court's order rejecting the developer's plea to refer the dispute to arbitration.
“It is clear from the plain language of Sub-section (1) of Section 8 of the A&C Act that an application under Section 8 can be made not later than the date of submitting his first statement on the substance of the dispute,” the Bench observed.
Referring to its earlier decision in SPML Infra Ltd. v. Trisquare Switchgears (P) Ltd. and the Supreme Court's ruling in SSCG Contracts (India) (P) Ltd. v. K.S. Chamankar Infrastructure (P) Ltd., the Bench reiterated that in commercial suits a written statement must be filed within 30 days of service of summons, extendable up to 120 days, beyond which the right stands forfeited.
Case Title : Mobisy Technologies Pvt Ltd v. M/s J G Hosiery Pvt Ltd
Case Number : CMP No. 311 of 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 20
The Karnataka High Court held that enterprises are not required in every case to move the Facilitation Council under Chapter V of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006, which provides a mechanism for referring delayed payment disputes to the Council.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj clarified that a contractual arbitration clause remains enforceable unless the statutory process under Section 18 is actually invoked.
“It cannot be said, as an absolute proposition, that micro, small or medium enterprises are required in every case to proceed only under Chapter V of the MSMED Act and to refer all disputes to the Facilitation Council under Section 18. The requirement arises only upon invocation of the statutory mechanism in the case of micro and small enterprises, and does not arise at all in the case of medium enterprises,” the Court observed.
The Court further held that Chapter V, titled “Delayed payments to micro and small enterprises,” applies only to micro and small enterprises. Referring to Section 2(n), which defines “supplier” as a micro or small enterprise, it held that the definition cannot be stretched to include medium enterprises. Medium enterprises are therefore outside the scope of Section 18.
Arbitration Can Resume Without Fresh Notice After Award Is Set Aside: Karnataka High Court
Case Title : M/s Re Sustainability Healthcare Solutions Limited v. Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike and Anr
Case Number : Civil Misc. Petition No. 12 of 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 14
The Karnataka High Court has held that once an arbitral award is set aside, the disputes stand revived and can be referred back to arbitration without requiring the parties to issue a fresh notice under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Section 21 deals with the commencement of arbitral proceedings through notice to the opposing party. Justice Suraj Govindaraj held that this requirement is procedural and not jurisdictional and cannot be invoked to block arbitration after an award has been annulled. "The legal consequence of such an order is that the award is obliterated and ceases to exist in the eye of law,” the court held, clarifying that annulment of an award returns the parties to arbitration to resolve the same disputes. “The requirement of a fresh notice under Section 21 is procedural and cannot be elevated to a jurisdictional bar so as to defeat the substantive right of a party to seek arbitration,” the court added, noting that the opposing party was already aware of the disputes and had participated in earlier arbitral proceedings.
Case Title : Ssv Developers And Ors. Versus Sunder S/O. Premraj Jotwani And Ors.
Case Number : Civil Misc Petition No.100026 Of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 23
The Karnataka High Court has recently refused to appoint a substitute arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act after an award had already been passed and the matter was remanded only for a limited purpose, holding that such reconstitution would effectively reopen concluded arbitral proceedings.
Dismissing a plea filed by SSV Developers and its Managing Partner Vijaykumar Krishnasa Kabadi, Justice Lalitha Kanneganti held that once an award is passed and the case is remanded only for limited cross-examination and defence evidence, a fresh arbitrator cannot be appointed, particularly when the petitioners failed to comply with the District Court's direction to pay arbitral costs.
“The power to appoint another Arbitrator ordinarily arises when the mandate of the existing Arbitrator terminates during the course of arbitral proceedings. However, the present case stands on a different footing,” the court observed.
Case Title : R.K. Infra and Engineering (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s The Sandur Manganese and Iron Ore Ltd.
Case Number : Commercial Appeal No. 63 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 32
The Karnataka High Court has recently observed that the commencement of arbitral proceedings will be governed by agreed institutional rules and not necessarily by Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, since the provision applies only “unless otherwise agreed by the parties."
Dismissing a contractor's appeal against a Rs 7.99-crore arbitral award, the court observed that “It is apparent from the plain language of Section 21 of the A&C Act that the arbitral proceedings are deemed to commence on the date when a request that the disputes be referred to arbitration is received by the non-claimant. However, the opening words of Section 21 make it clear that this is subject to the parties agreeing otherwise.”
Case Title : Coorg Cineplex & Ors v. K.J. Nagendra Gupta & Anr.
Case Number : Commercial Appeal No. 34 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 34
The Karnataka High Court has recently upheld a Commercial Court order rejecting a plea for interim measures filed by Coorg Cineplex and its partners, holding that after the expiry of the lease, the landlord cannot be restrained from raising objections before the licensing authority regarding the renewal of a theatre licence.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C.M. Poonacha dismissed the appeal filed by the Cineplex, which had sought directions to the licensing authority to consider renewal of the theatre licence without insisting on the landlord's no-objection certificate.
The court noted that the licensing authority was not a party to the arbitration proceedings and is required to act in accordance with law.
It observed, “Clearly, the respondents are entitled to raise their objections before the licensing authority. We find no reason that would compel the respondents to refrain from raising objections. Conversely, we do not accept that the appellants have any right to insist that the respondents desist from raising their objections.”
Case Title : Sarfaraz Munaf v. Siraj Ummer and Ors
Case Number : Commercial Appeal No. 277 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 49
The Karnataka High Court has held that, in the facts of the case, a retired partner can seek to refer a dispute to arbitration to defend himself in a recovery suit, and such a plea cannot be rejected merely because the partnership firm was not registered. A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C.M. Poonacha was considering an appeal challenging an order of the Commercial Court, which had refused to refer the parties to arbitration under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
Dealing with the argument that the Commercial Courts Act overrides the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, the bench held that the contention was “bereft of any merit”. “Arbitration is an alternative dispute resolution mechanism outside the Court's adjudicatory processes. However, the courts have a limited role in arbitration matters. Section 5 of the A&C Act also provides the extent of judicial intervention in matters governed by Part I of the A&C Act." It added: “The CC Act does not oust arbitration, but provides for recourse to the Commercial Division, the Commercial Appellate Division, or the Commercial Court, to the limited extent as contemplated under the A&C Act.”
Mere Allegation Of Fraud Not A Bar To Arbitration: Karnataka High Court
Case Title : Sarfaraz Munaf Partner V/S Mr. Siraj Ummer And Ors.
Case Number : Comap No. 277 Of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 49
The Karnataka High Court on 8 April held that mere allegations of fraud or prior monetary transactions do not oust arbitration where the dispute arises from agreements containing arbitration clauses. A Bench comprising Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C.M. Poonacha held that Courts must refer parties to arbitration under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act unless a party shows that no prima facie arbitration agreement exists. It further noted the interplay with the Commercial Courts Act and stated:
“the CC Act does not oust arbitration, but provides for recourse to the Commercial Division, the Commercial Appellate Division, or the Commercial Court, to the limited extent as contemplated under the A&C Act.”
Disputes Under Subsequent Agreement Without Arbitration Clause Not Arbitrable: Karnataka High Court
Case Title : M. Mallikarjuna & Anr. v. S.P. Sridhara & Ors.
Case Number : MFA No. 2192 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 46
The Karnataka High Court on 2 April, held that an Arbitral Tribunal cannot decide disputes arising from a subsequent agreement that lacks an arbitration clause, nor can it rely on an earlier lapsed agreement whose arbitration clause has ceased to operate. A Bench comprising Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C.M. Poonacha set aside an award that directed execution of a sale deed between M. Mallikarjuna and Smt. Rajeshwari Mallikarjuna (appellants) and S.P. Sridhara and S.P. Muralidhar (respondents).The Court noted:
“There was no arbitration agreement between the parties for referring disputes relating to a period prior to the constitution of the Firm under the partnership deed to arbitration.” It added that the “parties entered into a fresh agreement, which constitutes a novation. The arbitration clause under the earlier agreement is therefore inapplicable. Unless the parties expressly agree otherwise, disputes arising from the novated agreement cannot be referred to arbitration under the earlier clause.”
Case Title : L. Vivekananda v. Handy 101 Solutions and Service Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
Case Number : Commercial Appeal No. 95 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 48
The Karnataka High Court has recently refused to condone a delay of 85 days in filing an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, holding that a busy schedule and travel do not constitute “sufficient cause." Holding that the appeal was barred by limitation and also devoid of merit, the court dismissed the appeal filed by L Vivekananda against Handy 101 Solutions and Service Pvt. Ltd. and its promoter Peter Pushparaj, thereby upholding the Commercial Court's order and the arbitral award, which had rejected Vivekananda's claim for Rs. 35 lakh under a Share Purchase Agreement.
A Division Bench of Justices Anu Sivaraman and Tara Vitasta Ganju observed, “As stated above, I.A.No.1/2023 has been filed by the appellant/claimant, which sets out that the reason for the delay was because the appellant/claimant had a busy schedule and was travelling out of station and could not instruct his counsel." The Court further reiterated that “the expression 'sufficient cause' is not elastic enough to cover long delays, which are beyond the period provided by the appeal provision itself.
Arbitral Award Cannot Be Set Aside In Entirety If Claims Are Separable: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: Pinaka Infomatics Private Limited v. Karnataka State Electronics Development Corporation Limited
Case Number : Commercial Appeal No. 517 of 2024
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(KAR) 64
The Karnataka High Court has held that an arbitral award comprising distinct and separable claims cannot be set aside in its entirety merely because one component is found invalid, as courts have the power to sever the invalid portion while sustaining the valid portion.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C.M. Poonacha allowed the appeal filed by Pinaka Infomatics Private Limited and modified the order of the Commercial Court, Bengaluru, which had set aside the arbitral award in full. It stated:
“As noted herein before the Supreme Court also observed that the authority to sever the 'invalid' portion of an arbitral award from the 'valid' portion is inherent in the court's jurisdiction when setting aside an award.”
Case Title: P. Nagaraju vs The Special Land Acquisition Officer & Ors
Case Number: MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1034 OF 2026 (AA
Citation :2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 65
The Karnataka High Court has reiterated that courts cannot enhance compensation by modifying arbitral awards in land acquisition disputes under the National Highways Act.
Referring to the precedent set by apex court, the court held,
"The question whether the court could modify the award was also considered by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in a recent decision in Gayatri Balasamy v. ISG Novasoft Technologies Limited3 . The Supreme Court, by a majority held that the arbitral award could be modified to a limited extent to rectify computable, clerical or typographical errors as well as other manifest errors. However, the Supreme Court also clarified that the same was subject to such modification not necessitating a meritsbased evaluation. Thus, the Court exercising the power under Section 34 of the A&C Act cannot re-adjudicate the disputes and substitute its opinion on the merits of the disputes in place of the award of the arbitral tribunal."
Karnataka High Court Dismisses AVTEC Appeal, Holds Unilateral Appointment Of Sole Arbitrator Invalid
Case Title : AVTEC Limited v. PDS Logistics International Private Limited
Case Number: Commercial Appeal No. 245 of 2021
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(KAR) 61
The Karnataka High Court on 29 April dismissed an appeal filed by AVTEC Limited and upheld the Commercial Court's order setting aside an arbitral award.
A Division Bench of Justices Anu Sivaraman and T.M. Nadaf held that parties cannot permit unilateral appointment of a sole arbitrator under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and also ruled that a party which participates in arbitration without objection cannot later dispute jurisdiction. It observed:
“The appellant having participated in the arbitration at Bengaluru on merits without raising any objection to the venue. Therefore, the appellant had acquiesced to the venue and consequently, the seat has been changed to Bengaluru.”
Case Title : AUTOMOTIVE AXLES vs SRI K.S. SRIDHAR
Case Number : COMMERCIAL APPEAL NO.391 OF 2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 77
The Karnataka High Court on 1 June, partly set aside an arbitral award of Rs.79.58 lakh in favour of contractor K.S. Sridhar, holding that several claims allowed by the arbitrator lacked evidentiary support and were patently illegal.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C.M. Poonacha partly allowed the appeal filed by Automotive Axles Employees Housing Co-operative Society Ltd., modifying the arbitral award while sustaining certain monetary components in favour of the contractor. The judges observed:
“In view of the aforementioned, the award of the Tribunal on claim Nos.2, 3 and 6 are patently illegal and are accordingly set aside. The award of the Tribunal on claim Nos.1, 4 and 5 are not interfered with. The above appeal is partly allowed in the aforementioned terms.”
Case Title : D. Arun Reddy & Anr. v. Late Muni Reddy & Ors.
Case Number : W.P. No.3571 of 2023 (GM-CPC)
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(KAR) 74
The Karnataka High Court has recently held that a dispute arising out of a Joint Development Agreement for a residential apartment project in Bengaluru was not a commercial dispute and could not be entertained by a Commercial Court, while setting aside an order that had assumed jurisdiction over a challenge to an arbitral award.
Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju observed, “the property in dispute, which was developed pursuant to the JDA, cannot be said to be immovable property used exclusively in trade or commerce within the meaning of Section 2(1)(c)(vii) of the CC Act. The dispute pertains to development and allocation of residential apartments. Both parties are individuals and share the redeveloped flats and area as re-constructed. There is no material to indicate that the property was actually used for trade or commerce. Consequently, Section 2(1)(c)(vii) of the CC Act would not be attracted to the facts of the present case.”
Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Part Of Arbitral Award Over GST Computation On Non-Tendered Works
Case Title: NATIONAL CENTRE FOR BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES vs URC CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS
Case Number : COMMERCIAL APPEAL NO. 383 OF 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 90
The Karnataka High Court has partly set aside an arbitral award in a dispute between the National Centre for Biological Sciences (NCBS) and URC Constructions Pvt Ltd.
The court held that the arbitral tribunal ignored material evidence while concluding that the value of non-tendered items was ₹9.65 crore exclusive of GST.
A division bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C.M. Poonacha found that invoices and other records on the arbitral record showed that at least some GST was included in the ₹9.65 crore figure. The tribunal had failed to consider that material.
The bench held, “In view of the above, the impugned award, to the extent that it proceeds on the basis that the value of NT items exclusive of GST is `9,65,91,596/-, is set aside. The said conclusion ignores that the said amount is an aggregate of the amount included in the invoices and bills, and at least some of those invoices, which are on record, expressly include 18% GST. Failure to consider such relevant and vital evidence renders the impugned award vulnerable on the grounds of patent illegality.”
Case Title: Smt G.S Sridevi v. Shri H Mahadev Goud
Case Number : Writ Petition No. 10641 of 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(KAR) 92
The Karnataka High Court has recently held that an order rejecting a jurisdictional objection by an arbitral tribunal cannot ordinarily be challenged through a writ petition while arbitral proceedings are pending. Such a challenge must ordinarily await the arbitral award stage.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj delivered the ruling while declining to interfere with an order of a sole arbitrator who had rejected a challenge to the tribunal's jurisdiction in a dispute arising from an Agreement of Sale.
“Thus, until an arbitral award is passed, an order rejecting a plea under Section 16 of the A & C Act is ordinarily not amenable to an independent challenge. The statutory scheme clearly postpones such a challenge to the stage of proceedings under Section 34,” the court held.
Patna High Court
Case Title : Ankit Enterprises vs. M/S Shri Ram Sunil Kumar & Anr.
Case Number : Civil Revision No. 6 of 2023
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(PAT) 5
The Patna High Court has reaffirmed that a civil revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure does not lie against such an order passed under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 where the statute provides a specific appellate remedy.
The Court held that the Arbitration Act is a self-contained code and that Section 37 exhausts the appellate remedies.
Justice Ramesh Chand Malviya observed, “It is settled principles of law that the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 being a self-contained code, no revision under Section 115 CPC lies against such an order. Section 37 exhausts the appellate remedies and permitting a revision would amount to judicial interference not contemplated by the Act.” It relied on Supreme Court precedents emphasising that the Arbitration Act is a special and exhaustive legislation intended to ensure speedy dispute resolution, and therefore judicial intervention must remain strictly within the limited framework provided under the Act.
Case Title : The New India Assurance Company Limited v. Krishna City Hospital and Anr.
Case Number : Commercial Appeal No. 6 of 2024.
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(PAT) 4
The Patna High Court has ruled that the limitation period to challenge an arbitral award starts only when the party itself receives a signed copy of the award by registered post, and not when a signed copy is merely received on the email of the party's lawyer. "Thus, a conjoint reading of sub-section (5) of Section 31 and sub-section (3) of Section 34 would make it clear that the reckoning point for computation of the period of limitation is the date on which the party making the application had received the arbitral award.", the court said.
The Court held that mere receipt of a signed copy of the award on the lawyer's email, and its subsequent forwarding to the client with an opinion, cannot be treated as compliance with the statutory requirement. The Court observed: "We cannot stretch the meaning of the provision or substitute our own opinion in place of the wisdom of the legislatures as contained in sub-section (5) of Section 31 of the Act of 1996," the court said.
Patna High Court Sets Aside Award Based On Pleadings Alone Without Evidence, Cites Natural Justice
Case Title : Narayan Prasad v. State of Bihar
Case Number : Commercial Appeal No. 1 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(PAT) 7
The Patna High Court has recently set aside an arbitral award and a subsequent order upholding it, holding that an award based solely on pleadings without proof of documents violates the principles of natural justice and cannot be sustained.
The ruling came in a dispute arising from an excavation contract between contractor Narayan Prasad and the State of Bihar, where the contractor had been directed to pay Rs 7.41 lakh as excess payment and Rs 6.68 lakh towards rectification of a ditch, along with interest at 12% per annum. A Division Bench of Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Justice Soni Shrivastava observed, “In the present case, it is evident from the various orders passed by the learned arbitrator that at no stage of the proceeding, the learned Arbitrator decided as to whether to hold oral hearings for the presentation of evidence or for oral argument. The pleadings in form of statement of claims and statement of defence cannot take place of the oral or documentary evidence. The minimum thing which was required to be done was to call upon the parties to admit or deny the documents submitted by both of them… Even as strict rules of evidence would not apply but these are to be followed as fundamental policy of law. It is also in consonance with the principles of natural justice.”
Case Title: The Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. & Ors. v. Piyush Kumar
Case Number: Commercial Appeal No. 7 of 2025 and Commercial Appeal No. 14 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(PAT) 14
The Patna High Court has partly set aside an arbitral award against Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd, holding that compensation awarded without evidence of actual loss or injury could not be sustained.
A Division Bench of Justice Mohit Kumar Shah and Justice Arun Kumar Jha held:
“Thus, there is no proof much less any evidence whatsoever, on the records of the arbitral proceedings regarding the claimant-respondent having suffered any loss or injury, hence the award of compensation to the tune of Rs.25 lakhs is based on no evidence, thus is outrightly perverse, hence is set aside.”
The court, however, upheld the principal award of ₹22.67 crore in favour of the contractor.
Correction Of Contradictory Operative Direction Does Not Amount To Review Of Award: Patna High Court
Case Title: M/s Ganesh Foundry and Castings Limited v. The Bihar State Electricity Board (now M/s Bihar State Power (Holding) Company Limited) & Ors.
Case Number : Commercial Appeal No. 6 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(PAT) 15
The Patna High Court on 18 June held that an arbitral tribunal may correct an apparent contradiction or computation error under Section 33 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, where the correction aligns the operative portion of the award with the tribunal's findings and does not amount to a review on merits.
A Division Bench of Justices Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Kumar Manish dismissed the appeal filed by Ganesh Foundry and Castings Limited and upheld the additional arbitral award as well as the Commercial Court's order refusing to interfere with it. It observed:
“To this Court, it appears that the cluster of words such as 'any computation errors, any clerical or typographical errors or any other errors of a similar nature occurring in the award' are to be given a purposive interpretation in the context in which this provision has been incorporated in the statute. In a world of commercial exigencies this provision has to be interpreted in such a way that it serves the purpose behind incorporating Section 33 of the Act of 1996.”
Case Title : Bihar State Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. v. Amit Kumar
Case Number: Miscellaneous Appeal No. 485 of 2022
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(PAT) 16
The Patna High Court on 18 June allowed an appeal filed by the Bihar State Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. against the contractor operating Nalanda Cafeteria, set aside the order of the Additional District Judge rejecting a Section 8 application, and directed reference of the dispute to arbitration under Clause 40 of the allotment letter.
Justice Khatim Reza held that conduct of parties such as acceptance of an allotment letter, payment of licence fees and continued commercial operation can establish a binding intention to arbitrate even in the absence of a formally executed agreement. The Bench observed:
“Moreover, the plaintiff has acted upon the allotment letter and continued the commercial business for running Nalanda Cafeteria, Nalanda and accepted to pay the payment of license fees for succeeding year. The clause contained in the allotment letter clearly stipulate a reference to arbitration deserve to be construed as an arbitration clause.”
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Case Title: Shyam Indus Power Solution Private Ltd. v. Madhya Pradesh Madhya Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Co. Ltd.
Case Number: Misc. Petition No. 3672 Of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (MP) 6
The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that courts enforcing arbitration awards cannot add interest on capital expenditure by default when the arbitral award is silent and there is no delay in payment. It also ruled that courts enforcing arbitration awards cannot redo the electricity pricing formula used to calculate payments to power distributors once an arbitral award has become final.
During execution proceedings, Shyam Indus asked the court to recalculate IRF and grant post-award interest on CAPEX. The High Court rejected both. On interest, the court said post-award interest is meant to ensure prompt payment and cannot be granted where there is no delay. “There was no delay on the part of the MPMKVVCL/Judgment Debtor to make a payment of the CAPEX amount; hence, the question of grant of interest on this amount does not arise,” the court said.
Parties Must Exhaust Contractual Dispute Resolution Before Court Appoints Arbitrator: MP High Court
Case Title: Anshul Chawla v. Taskis India Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number: AC-105-2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (MP) 5
The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that a court cannot appoint an arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 unless the party seeking such appointment has first exhausted the dispute resolution mechanism contractually agreed upon between the parties. A Bench of Justice Pavan Kumar Dwivedi dismissed three applications filed by former employees of Taskis India Private Limited, seeking appointment of an arbitrator, holding that the applicants were bound by the arbitration procedure stipulated in their employment agreements.
The Court observed, “Applicants have to first exhaust the procedure as agreed upon in terms of Clause 13 of the Employment Agreement and only after that, if occasion so arise, they can approach the competent Court for redressal of their grievance.” Referring to the comprehensive procedure laid down under the MCIA Rules for appointment, challenge, and replacement of arbitrators, the Court held that the applicants could not bypass the agreed mechanism and directly seek appointment of an arbitrator from the Court.
Case Title: Athletics Sangh Madhya Pradesh Bhopal v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number: Misc. Petition No. 4181 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(MP) 4
The Madhya Pradesh High Court clarified that arbitration challenges arising from non-commercial disputes with no determinable monetary value cannot be heard by Commercial Courts, even if such courts function at the level of a Civil Judge (Senior Division). The court clarified that the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 applies only when two conditions are met, the dispute must be commercial in nature and must have a specified value as defined under the law. Justice Vivek Jain said that where these requirements are absent, Commercial Courts do not have jurisdiction.
The court observed: “In the present case, since there is no specified value of the claim, therefore, the application could not have been transferred to the Commercial Court and it should continue only as per the Act of 1996 before the Court as defined in Section 2(e) as the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction, which shall be the Principal District Judge or any District Judge under him.” While reaffirming that the Commercial Courts Act can override the Arbitration Act in appropriate cases, the court made it clear that such overriding effect applies only to commercial disputes of specified value.
Case Title: Steel Authority Of India Ltd. v. M/S R Haranadha Reddy
Case Number: ARBITRATION APPEAL No. 14 of 2009
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (MP) 9
The Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur set aside a district court order that rejected SAIL's objections to a Rs 1.54-crore arbitration award, with its reasoning confined to just two paragraphs. The High Court said such a dismissal, without dealing with the objections raised, cannot be sustained. Justice Vivek Jain, while ordering a fresh decision through a reasoned order observed, “Such a non-speaking order passed in course of proceedings under Section 34 cannot be upheld by this Court, because there is no reasonable consideration of the grounds raised by the appellant in the application under section 34.” the court said.
“Though there may not be requirement of having a discussion like a judgment in civil suit, but each and every ground raised must have had some consideration, in at least a couple of lines to show the reasoning of the Court that how the ground raised does not fall within the purview of the grounds as enumerated in Section 34(2) of the Act of 1996,” the court observed.
Case Title : Maverick Developer And Colonizers Pvt. Ltd. v. Project Officer
Case Number : ARBITRATION CASE No. 112 of 2019
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (MP) 8
The Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur has held that disputes arising out of works contracts with municipal corporations covered by the MP Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 cannot be taken to arbitration under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and must instead be decided by the state's statutory arbitration tribunal. Justice Vivek Jain held that although municipalities are described in the Constitution as institutions of local self-government, this does not place them beyond the financial and supervisory control of the State Government.
Rejecting the contractor's argument, the court observed, “The self-government as prescribed in Article 243-P(e) has to be understood in the manner of self-government of the Municipal area or the local area for which the Municipality is functioning. It cannot be construed to be a self-government institution vis-à-vis the State Government and to bring it out of financial and supervisory control of the State Government.”
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.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Holds ICA Award Void, Says Only CJI Can Appoint Arbitrator
Case Title : Ssangyong Engineering and Construction Company Ltd v. M/s S.B. Engineering Associates
Case Number : Arbitration Appeal No. 14 of 2023 & 25 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (MP) 26
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that an arbitral award against Ssangyong Engineering and Construction Company Ltd is a nullity in law, as the dispute was an international commercial arbitration and, under Sections 11(9) and 11(12) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, only the Chief Justice of India or a person or institution designated by him could appoint the arbitrator. The court noted that Ssangyong is a company incorporated in the Republic of Korea, and therefore the arbitration between the parties falls within the definition of an international commercial arbitration under Section 2(1)(f). In such a case, it held, the jurisdiction to appoint an arbitrator lies exclusively with the Chief Justice of India. The appointment made by the High Court was thus without jurisdiction.
Chief Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Vinay Saraf observed, “Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act does not empower the person designated by the Chief Justice of High Court to appoint an arbitrator in International Commercial Arbitration mbut only empowers the Chief Justice of India. The provisions are mandatory in nature and cannot be waived.”
MP High Court Sets Aside Arbitral Award In Insulator Supply Dispute For Patent Illegality
Case Title : Madhya Pradesh Power Transmission Company Limited v VK Udyog Ltd.
Case Number : Arbitration Appeal No. 15 and 16 Of 2024
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (MP) 28
Setting aside an arbitral award in a dispute over the supply of disc insulators for transmission lines, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has found that the award was vitiated by patent illegality, noting that the arbitrator overlooked key provisions of the Contract Act and returned findings that did not align with the contractual record.
The Bench of Justices Vivek Rusia and Pradeep Mittal said the November 16, 2018 award was marked by fundamental errors. It pointed out that the arbitrator had wrongly applied Sections 20, 62, 73 and 74 of the Contract Act and failed to properly engage with crucial aspects of the agreement between the parties.
The court held:
“The award is set aside on the ground of patent illegality, inasmuch as the learned Arbitrator has: (i) failed to consider the Appellant's objections founded on Sections 20, 73 and 74 of the Contract Act; (ii) misapplied Section 62 of the Contract Act by treating a bilateral contractual amendment, validly entered into between the parties, as a nullity; and (iii) rendered a finding on rejection of goods that is contrary to the documentary record and the terms of the contract. Each of these infirmities independently constitutes patent illegality within the meaning of Section 34(2A) of the Act, 1996, warranting interference”
Case Title : SS Associates v Dilip Buildcon
Case Number : Arbitration Case No. 141 Of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (MP) 25
The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently reiterated that parallel criminal proceedings between private parties do not bar arbitration unless the allegations have a public character and proceeded to appoint an arbitrator in a dispute arising out of purchase orders between the parties.
A single bench of Justice Vivek Jain emphasised, observing, “Be that as it may be, but it is settled in law that even where criminal proceedings are pending parallelly, then also arbitration proceedings can continue unless the criminal allegation is of such a nature that it amounts to an allegation in rem, but where the criminal action or criminality alleged by one party against the other party is criminality alleged in personam then the arbitration proceedings cannot be scuttled."
Case Title : NHAI v Gayatri Devi and Others
Case Number : Arbitration Appeals 269-275 of 2023
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (MP) 30
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has upheld a district court's decision to send a land compensation dispute back to an arbitrator after finding that the arbitrator ignored that the land had already been declared urban before fixing compensation.
“The power of remand as held by the constitution bench permits the Court to send the award to the Tribunal for reconsideration of specific aspects and it is not an open ended process rather it is a limited power confined to limited circumstances and issues identified by the Court.” the court said.
Even Consent Cannot Cure Lack of Jurisdiction In HC Appointment Of Arbitrator In ICA: MP High Court
Case Title : The State Of Madhya Pradesh Versus M/S SMEC International Pvt. Ltd
Case Number : Arbitration Appeal No. 266 Of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (MP) 22
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that an arbitrator appointed by a High Court in an international commercial arbitration has no authority in law to decide the dispute, and any award passed in such proceedings is void. A bench of Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Pradeep Mittal said, “The conjoint reading of Section 11(6) and Section 11(12)(a), ACA makes it abundantly clear that the power to appoint an arbitrator in an ICA lies exclusively with the Supreme Court. The High Court has no jurisdiction to appoint an arbitrator in an international commercial arbitration, and such power is in the exclusive domain of the Supreme Court. The aforesaid provisions are non-derogable and any order passed by the High Court appointing an arbitrator in ICA suffers from complete lack of jurisdiction and is a nullity in law.”
Case Title : Helwett Packard Enterprise India Private Limited v Bhopal Smart City Development Corporation Limited
Case Number : AC No. 150 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (MP) 21
The Madhya Pradesh High Court on 31 March held that every arbitrator in a tribunal, including party-appointed arbitrators, must remain independent and impartial under the Seventh Schedule and Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Justice Vivek Jain appointed Justice K.K. Lahoti as the sole arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between Hewlett Packard Enterprise India Private Limited (HP/petitioner) and Bhopal Smart City Development Corporation Limited (BSCC/respondent), after the latter nominated the Commissioner, Urban Administration and Development Department, Madhya Pradesh (UADD).
The Bench held: “The respondents could have appointed some other independent and impartial person as their arbitrator because independence and impartiality is not required only of third arbitrator in a three members arbitral tribunal, but each and every arbitrator needs to be independent and impartial.”
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"
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.”
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.”
Madhya Pradesh High Court Holds MPIR Execution Not Barred by Limitation, Reads Down Rule 48-A
Case Title: Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur v Chotelal
Case Number : Misc. Petition No. 2501 Of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(MP) 37
The Jabalpur Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court on 21 April held that execution proceedings under the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Relations Act, 1960 (MPIR Act) are not barred by limitation even when initiated after more than a decade of the award.
Justice Vivek Jain further read down Rule 48-A of the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Relations Rules, 1961, holding that it cannot override Section 108 of the Act by prescribing a limitation period for execution and dismissed a petition filed by the Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur. He held:
“The substantive Act, that is the Act of 1960 declares that the recovery of money shall be executed as if it was a fine imposed by a criminal court under CRPC, for which there is no limitation prescribed for such recovery. On the contrary, the rule applies Code of Civil Procedure to such execution of recoveries and also applies a limitation period which is counter to the substantive provisions of the parent Act which does not provide any limitation for execution either in Section 108 or anywhere else in the act. Even the procedure for recovery as per Section 108 shall be as per Section 421 of Cr.P.C. whereas the Rule 48-A provides a totally different mode by adopting Code of Civil Procedure for that purpose. Therefore the Rule 48-A is in direct conflict with Section of the Act.”
Case Title: MPM Homes Developers Ltd Through Its Partner Smt. Annapurna Maheshwari And Others Versus M/S Amarjot Developers And Finance Pvt. Ltd Through Authorized Signatory Vivek Chugh
Case Number : Arbitration Appeal No. 332 Of 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (MP) 32
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has upheld an interim order restraining parties from alienating disputed property in an arbitration matter and held that the interim injunction shall continue during the pendency of arbitration proceedings.
“we are of the view that the learned trial Court was right in exercising its jurisdiction under Section 9 of the Act, 1996 considering the fact that the sole arbitrator was appointed and arbitral tribunal was constituted after the learned trial Court had applied its mind and had entertained the application filed under Section 9 and at that time, the respondent did not had any other efficacious remedy.”
Case Title : Northern Coal Field Ltd. Versus M/S Suresh Construction Co
Case Number: ARBITRATION APPEAL No. 39 of 2011
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (MP) 33
The Madhya Pradesh High Court on 4 May held that limitation for an arbitral claim begins when the claim is denied or repudiated, and not from the date of issuance of notice under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. It further held that an arbitral tribunal commits patent illegality if it treats the Section 21 notice as the starting point of limitation.
A Bench of Justice Vivek Jain partly allowed the appeal filed by Northern Coal Fields Ltd. (NCL) and set aside portions of the arbitral award relating to overburden removal charges, withheld payments, and interest thereon, while upholding the award on escalation charges and interest on escalation amounts. He observed:
“the limitation to initiate Section 11 application is different from the limitation of claim. The limitation of claim is to be assessed up to the date of issuing notice under Section 21 and it will not start from the date of issuing notice under Section 21 and to that extent, the award of the Arbitrator is contrary to the law of the land by misconruing the law of limitation in Arbitration.”
Case Title: Amar India Pvt. Ltd. v Union of India and Others
Case Number: AC No. 55 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(MP) 39
The Indore Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court on 4 May appointed an arbitrator in a dispute between Western Railway and a service provider after rejecting the Railway's contention that the dispute was non-arbitrable, holding that claims for payment of dues for work already executed fall outside the “excepted matters” under the contract.
Justice Pavan Kumar Dwivedi allowed the petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, observing:
“In view of the above analysis of the facts of the present case and the relevant clauses of the GCC this Court is of the view that the issue of payment of dues as sought to be referred to arbitral tribunal by the applicant is not covered under the excepted matters thus the same is arbitrable.”
Case Title : Aurionpro Solutions Ltd. v. Madhya Pradesh Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, Bhopal & Ors.
Case Number : W.P. No. 2350 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(MP) 38
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that conciliation under the MSMED Act cannot be reduced to an “eyewash”, while setting aside an award passed by the Madhya Pradesh Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council against Aurionpro Solutions Ltd.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Vinay Saraf held that the Council could not proceed to arbitration without first conducting and terminating conciliation proceedings in the manner prescribed by law.
Observing that conciliation has statutory recognition and that the conciliator is required to assist the parties in an independent and fair manner, the Bench observed:
“The manner of conducting conciliation and even the role to be played by the conciliator to assist the parties in an independent and fair manner to arrive at a settlement has been statutorily proscribed. There is a legal sanctity attached the entire process of conciliation. It can not be made a mere eyewash as has been done in the present case.”
Case Title: Ashish and Others v. National Highway Authority of India
Case Number : Arbitration Appeal No. 157 of 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (MP) 45
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that a party cannot seek exclusion of time spent before a wrong forum under the Limitation Act if it fails to explain why it did not challenge the arbitral award within the prescribed period
Justice Deepak Khot delivered the ruling while dismissing an appeal filed by Ashish and others against the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI). The Court upheld an order rejecting their challenge to an arbitral award as barred by limitation.
The court observed that a litigant seeking the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act must show that it pursued proceedings before the wrong forum with due diligence and in good faith.
"For the purpose of entertaining an application beyond statutory period applying the provision of section 14, the principle which is to be followed is that the person prosecuting or challenging the order or award, decree under the wrong advice, has chosen a wrong forum with due diligence and in good faith."
Final Termination Order Not Needed To Invoke Arbitration: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Case Title: M/s Natural Petroleum v Indian Oil Corporation Limited
Case Number: AC No. 150 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(MP) 42
The Madhya Pradesh High Court on 13 May held that a show cause notice proposing termination, coupled with a reply denying the allegations, constitutes a “dispute” sufficient to invoke arbitration, even in the absence of a final termination order.
Justice Pavan Kumar Dwivedi rejected Indian Oil Corporation Limited's (IOCL) objection that the petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was premature and appointed Justice (Retd.) Virender Singh as the sole Arbitrator. The Bench held:
“It was for the parties to decide the mode of dispute resolution at the time of execution of the agreement. The respondent agreed for the arbitration as a mode of resolution of dispute with open eyes and without qualifying it with any such condition that the concerned authority must first pass order and supply the same to the applicant in accordance with the guidelines and only thereafter arbitration may be resorted to. No such qualification exists in the arbitration agreement. Thus, the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that the present application for arbitration is premature is hereby rejected.”
Case Title : M/s Lite Bite Foods Pvt. Ltd. v Airport Authority of India
Case Number: MISC. PETITION No. 2470 of 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (MP) 44
The Madhya Pradesh High Court on 27 May held that courts cannot grant an unconditional stay on the execution of an arbitral money award unless the award is vitiated by fraud or corruption or the award debtor establishes an “exceptional case”.
A Division Bench of Justices Vivek Jain and Ajay Kumar Nirankari allowed the petition filed by Lite Bite Foods Pvt. Ltd., set aside the District Court's order granting an unconditional stay in favour of the Airports Authority of India (AAI), holding that a court cannot mechanically rely on Lifestyle Equities C.V. v. Amazon Technologies Inc. without first examining whether the case satisfies the legal threshold for granting such relief. The Bench observed:
“In the present case, the District Judge has applied Lifestyle (Supra) in the case of arbitration, but for that, it ought to have held the case to fall within the parameters of the test lid therein. However, it did not return any prima facie finding even as per Lifestyle (supra)… There is no finding in terms of para 138 of Lifestyle (supra) that whether the decree is perverse, whether it is riddled with patent illegalities, is facially untenable, or any other exceptional cause similar in nature.”
MP High Court Refers Gopal Enterprises-NCL Dispute To Arbitration Despite Use Of 'May' in Clause
Case Title: Gopal Enterprises (Partnership Firm) v. The Northern Coalfields Limited (A Miniratna Company and Subsidiary of Coal India Limited)
Case Number: ARBITRATION CASE No. 11 of 2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (MP) 46
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has referred a payment dispute between Gopal Enterprises and Northern Coalfields Limited (NCL) to arbitration.
It held that the use of the word "may" in the contract's dispute resolution clause did not dilute the parties' intention to resolve disputes through arbitration.
Justice Deepak Khot rejected NCL's objections and appointed Justice H.P. Singh, a former judge of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, as the sole arbitrator.
"The intention of the parties to enter into an arbitration agreement must be inferred from the terms of the agreement. Where the terms of an agreement clearly reveal the intention of the parties to submit their disputes to a private tribunal for resolution and to accept the decision of the tribunal as binding, the agreement constitutes an arbitration agreement," the court observed.
Case Title: JVS Foods Pvt. Ltd. v. M.P. State Agro Industries Development Corporation Ltd.
Case Number: ARBITRATION CASE No. 90 of 2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (MP) 48
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that a party cannot "blow hot and cold" on arbitration by opposing arbitral reference after having accepted or relied on arbitration in similar disputes arising from the same agreement.
The court consequently appointed a sole arbitrator to resolve a dispute over the valuation of shares following a proposed exit from a shareholders' agreement.
Justice Deepak Khot passed the order in a dispute between JVS Foods Pvt. Ltd. and M.P. State Agro Industries Development Corporation Ltd. The court appointed former High Court judge Justice Alok Verma as the sole arbitrator and directed that the proceedings be conducted at Bhopal.
“Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, the non-applicant cannot blow hot and cold according to their whims and wishes when it comes to the appointment of the arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the parties. As in the present case the dispute is admitted, the non-applicant themselves have categorically replied the notice of arbitration by saying that still there are negotiations going on, therefore, it is appropriate that the parties should be relegated to the arbitration to resolve their dispute.”
Calcutta High Court
Court Can Extend Arbitrator's Mandate Even After Its Expiry: Calcutta High Court
Case Title : Andaman and Nicobar Islands Integrated Corporation Ltd. v. M/s Heaven on Ocean Tourism Pvt. Ltd
Case Number : AP/2/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 18
The Calcutta High Court has reiterated that an arbitrator's authority does not end automatically on expiry of the time limit prescribed under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The court said that it retains the power to extend an arbitrator's mandate even after expiry of the time fixed and that in this case the parties had consented by their conduct. Applying this settled position, the court extended the mandate of the arbitrator in the case before it and refused to terminate the proceedings at an advanced stage.
Justice Arindam Mukherjee, sitting at the Circuit Bench in Port Blair, noted that the order appointing the arbitrator had fixed an 18-month period but did not state that this timeline was final or incapable of extension. “An order should not be read as status,” the court observed, adding that “in absence of any specific stipulation that the time cannot be extended it has to be construed that time can be extended.”
Case Title: Zillion Infraprojects Private Limited v. Bridge And Roof Company India Limited
Case Number: AP-COM 913 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 15
The Calcutta High Court has reiterated that where an arbitral tribunal conclusively rejects claims as barred by limitation, such a determination amounts to an interim award and is amenable to challenge under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and not under Section 37. While Section 34 provides the remedy for challenging arbitral awards, Section 37 is confined to appeals against limited procedural or jurisdictional orders passed during the arbitral process.
Explaining the law, the court observed, “The nomenclature assigned to an order by the arbitral tribunal is not determinative; rather, it is the substance and effect of the order that governs the issue of maintainability. The Court must therefore ascertain whether the impugned determination is in the nature of a jurisdictional ruling under Section 16 of the Act, amenable to an appeal under Section 37(2), or whether it constitutes an interim award finally deciding certain claims, thereby attracting a challenge under Section 34.”
Case Title : C & E Limited and Others Vs. Gopal Das Bagri and Others
Case Number : A.P.O. No. 184 of 2023 In AP No. 402 of 2020, IA No: GA 2 of 2023
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 27
The Calcutta High Court has held that parties to an arbitration cannot introduce completely new material for the first time at the appellate stage (Section 37) of arbitration proceedings if such material could have been produced earlier but was not placed before the court when the arbitral award was initially challenged (Section 34). The court emphasised that an appeal at this stage is not an opportunity to cure evidentiary lapses or supplement the record belatedly.
A division bench of Justices Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Supratim Bhattacharya made the observation while deciding cross-appeals arising from an arbitral award dated February 29, 2020. The award had been set aside by a single judge of the High Court on July 27, 2023.
Case Title : Smt. Jaya Kar v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : IA No. GA 2 OF 2021 AP-550 OF 2017
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 21
The Calcutta High Court has dismissed an application seeking to challenge an arbitral award after finding that it was filed in the wrong proceeding. The Court held that once it appoints an arbitrator, it cannot entertain further applications in that case and that any challenge to an award must be filed separately under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
Justice Gaurang Kanth said, “the present application came to be filed in the disposed of Section 11 proceedings owing to an inadvertent and bona fide mistake on the part of the learned Counsel, such an error cannot confer jurisdiction upon this Court where none exists. Procedural latitude, howsoever liberal, cannot be extended so as to defeat the statutory scheme of the Act, particularly when the remedy and forum for assailing an arbitral award are specifically delineated.” “Unlike in Swadha Builders, the proceedings under Section 11 herein had attained finality upon appointment of the Arbitrator, and this Court had not retained seisin over the matter nor granted any leave to file subsequent applications,” the court observed.
Council Members Changed Between Hearing and Award: Calcutta High Court Sets Aside MSME Award
Case Title : The Board Of Major Port Authority For The Syama Prasad Mookerjee Port, Kolkata v. Marinecraft Engineers Private Limited
Case Number : A.P.O.T No. 195 of 2025; AP-COM 296 of 2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 25
The Calcutta High Court has set aside an arbitral award passed by the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Facilitation Council.It held that the award in this case could not stand because it was delivered by a differently constituted tribunal than the one that heard the parties A division bench of Justice Debangsu Basak and Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi found that the dispute was heard over several years but the Council's composition kept changing. The members who finally delivered and signed the award were not the same in material part as those who had heard the matter on merits.
The court noted, “there is a change in the position of the Arbitral Tribunal between the last date of its meeting on May 12, 2021 and the date when the award was passed on April 28, 2022. At least two of the members of the Council stood changed in between the last two dates.” Allowing the appeal, the High Court stressed that arbitral proceedings must comply with natural justice. The bench said, “. That arbitral decisions must adhere to principles of natural justice is the public policy of India, is trite law. Any breach of the principles of natural justice or the award being contrary to the fundamental policy of Indian laws allows re-appreciation of the award under Section 34 of the Act of 1996”
Arbitration | Mechanical Reliance On No Claim Certificate Is Non-Adjudication: Calcutta High Court
Case Title: Chaitanya Kumar Dey v. Union of India
Case Number: AP-777 of 2016
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 7
The Calcutta High Court held that mechanical reliance on a 'No Claim Certificate,' without examining whether the claims raised were covered by such document, amounts to non-adjudication. A Single Bench of Justice Gaurang Kanth in an order dated January 9 explained that the mechanical reliance on such certificates, without examining the surrounding facts and evidence, amounts to non-adjudication and renders the award vulnerable to challenge.
The Court observed: “Even execution of a full and final discharge voucher does not bar a contractor from claiming further amounts, provided entitlement is established on the basis of adequate material. Mechanical reliance on a No Claim Certificate, without such examination, amounts to non-adjudication.” The court reiterated that arbitrators are duty-bound to examine the circumstances surrounding execution of discharge vouchers and cannot treat them as an absolute bar to genuine claims.
Case Title: Siddharta Chandra v. SK. Abdul Kasem & Ors
Case Number: FMA 1738 of 2025 with CAN 1 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 12
The Calcutta High Court held that the statutory bar in the Commercial Courts Act operates as an inherent subject-matter bar in arbitration related proceedings and cannot be waived by consent or conduct of the parties, even if no objection is raised before the court of first instance. Justices Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Supratim Bhattacharya made the observation on January 13, while deciding an appeal filed by Siddharta Chandra challenging an order passed by the District Judge, Hooghly, under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
The respondent party argued that since no objection regarding maintainability or jurisdiction was raised before the Section 9 court, the appellant was precluded from raising it at the appellate stage. Rejecting this contention, the high court held that a statutory jurisdictional bar cannot be cured by silence, waiver, or acquiescence and non-argument before the designated court was entirely irrelevant.
Case Title: Jagannath Heights Pvt Ltd v. M/S Sammaan Capital Limited
Case No: IA NO. GA-COM/2/2025 In CS-COM/801/2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 13
The Calcutta High Court rejected a Master's summons application filed by M/s Samman Capital Limited, that sought stay of a commercial suit on the grounds of an existing arbitration clause. Emphasizing the need for a specific prayer, the Court held that "the age old settled legal principle is that when a statute prescribes to do certain thing in a certain manner, the thing has to be done in the same manner or not at all. All other modes are expressly forbidden." It held that as none of the prayers in the Master's Summons sought reference to arbitration under Section 8, it deemed the application untenable.
The Judge additionally stressed that liberal construction is not permitted in this context, as it would "defeat the legislative intent" behind the enactment. The Bench clarified that the “provision under Section 8 being a specific statutory provision has to be applied strictly by way of a separate application with specific prayer and it would be of no relevance whether in the written statement, the defendant has raised the issue or not”.
Case Title : Alok Saraf & Ors. vs Shyam Sundar Nangalia & Ors.
Case Number : APOT No.269 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 54
The Calcutta High Court on 18 February, held that an arbitral award holder is not left remediless after initiating enforcement proceedings and may seek interim protection under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act until the award is fully satisfied.
A Division Bench of Justices Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Supratim Bhattacharya was hearing an appeal filed by Alok Saraf and others against the EPI Group, challenging a single judge's order dated 10 September 2025, which had refused ad interim relief in their Section 9 application.
The Court observed: “Although Section 36 (2) of the 1996 Act itself contemplates stay of the award, the same operates only to the benefit of the award debtor, and is restricted to a stay of the award. However, neither Section 36 nor Section 34 of the 1996 Act provides any remedy similar to Section 9 to the award holder, in aid of and in order to facilitate the fruition of the award.”
Case Title : India Media Services Private Limited v. SBPL Infrastructure Limited
Case Number : APOT No. 1 of 2026 with IA No. GA 1 of 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 53
An executing court does not become functus officio merely because it “allows” an execution petition, the Calcutta High Court has held, clarifying that jurisdiction continues until the arbitral award is fully implemented and satisfied.
Dismissing an appeal filed by India Media Services Pvt Ltd, a Division Bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Justice Supratim Bhattacharya said that allowing the execution case was “merely nominal, contemplating further steps to be taken” and that “it cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that the executing court became functus officio.”
The Division Bench held that an award for specific performance remains executory until the deed is finalised, executed, and registered. “Unless an award is satisfied, it cannot be said that the execution is complete,” the Court observed.
Copy Of Arbitration Agreement Sufficient Where Original Not Available: Calcutta High Court
Case Title : Akankha Nirman Private Limited & Anr. v. M/s. Supreme Construction & Ors.
Case Number : CO 2628 of 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 51
The Calcutta High Court held that an application seeking reference to arbitration cannot be rejected merely because the original arbitration agreement or a certified copy is not produced, if the statutory requirements under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act are otherwise satisfied. A Single Bench of Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya set aside the orders of the trial court and the first appellate court, which had refused to refer the parties to arbitration.
The court observed that the courts below had adopted a “hyper-technical” approach and conducted a “mini trial” at the referral stage by holding that the dispute over the return of documents fell outside the scope of the arbitration clause. “This Court accordingly holds that when the original arbitration agreement or a duly certified copy thereof is not available with the party applying for reference to arbitration under Sub-section 1 of Section 8 of A & C Act, such application can be entertained if it is accompanied by a copy of arbitration agreement,” the bench observed.
No Appeal Lies Against Conditional Stay Of Arbitral Award: Calcutta High Court
Case Title : National Insurance Company Limited v. Tirupati Food Products
Case Number : APOT 320 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 45
The Calcutta High Court has held that an appeal does not lie against an order granting conditional stay of an arbitral award, observing that such orders fall outside the narrow appellate framework prescribed under arbitration Act. Section 36(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, allows a party that has challenged an arbitral award in court to seek a stay on the enforcement of that award.
A Division Bench of Justice Debangsu Basak and Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi dismissed an appeal filed by National Insurance Company Limited against an order of a Single Judge disposing of a Section 36(2) petition by granting conditional stay of an arbitral award.
Rejecting the appeal as not maintainable, the Division Bench held: “The right of appeal, so far as the parties before us are concerned, being circumscribed by Section 37 of the Act of 1996, and Section 37 of the Act of 1996 not providing any right of appeal against an order disposing of a petition under Section 36 (2) of the Act of 1996, the instant appeal is held to be not maintainable.”
Case Title : Prime Projects v. Prajnanananda Jana Seva Sangha & Anr.
Case Number: AP-COM 821 OF 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 47
The Calcutta High Court has observed that a real estate development agreement can qualify as a commercial dispute even if the project is residential in nature and even if both parties are not engaged in the business.
Justice Shampa Sarkar said the agreement, when read as a whole, showed that the property was meant to be commercially exploited.
"Whether the agreement is a nullity, and non est in the eye of law, will have to be decided by the learned arbitrator. The purpose of enquiry by the referral court is limited to the, prima facie, satisfaction as to the existence of the arbitration agreement", the court further observed.
Appointing a sole arbitrator, the court named Senior Advocate Sabyasachi Chowdhury to adjudicate the disputes between the parties. The appointment was made subject to disclosure requirements under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, and the arbitrator was given liberty to fix his remuneration in accordance with the statutory schedule.
Case Title : Indrani Sarangi v. Reliance Projects And Property Management Service Limited & Anr.
Case Number : AP (COM) No. 262 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 46
The Calcutta High Court has referred a telecom tower lease dispute to arbitration. It declined to decide, at the referral stage, whether non-signatory Reliance group entities were bound by the arbitration clause or whether past dues stood extinguished under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC).
Justice Shampa Sarkar held that such objections raise triable jurisdictional issues. These must be decided by the arbitral tribunal. The court reiterated that its role under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, is limited to a prima facie examination of the existence of an arbitration agreement.
“The scope of the referral court is limited to the, prima facie, satisfaction as to the existence of an arbitration agreement or an arbitration clause. No deeper probe or mini trial is permissible at this stage,” the court said.
Case Title : Turner Morrison Limited v. Berger Paints India Limited
Case Number : AP-COM/990/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 36
The Calcutta High Court has appointed Justice T.S. Sivagnanam, former Chief Justice of the Court, as the sole arbitrator to decide a tax liability holdback dispute between Turner Morrison Limited and Berger Paints India Limited. A Single Bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar held that objections based on limitation and contractual interpretation cannot be decided at the stage of appointing an arbitrator. The Court said such issues must be left to the arbitral tribunal, which is the “master of facts”. The court reiterated that its role at the referral stage is limited to examining the existence of an arbitration clause. A deeper inquiry into disputed facts or contractual meanings would defeat the purpose of arbitration as a speedy and time-bound remedy.
Calcutta High Court Sets Aside Arbitral Award Against Company Officials Without Impleading Companies
Case Title : Managing Director Bihar State Power Generation Company Ltd & Anr vs RS Construction & Anr
Case Number : APOT/332/2025, IA No.GA-COM/1/2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 43
The Calcutta High Court has set aside an arbitral award after finding that it was passed against two officials of state-owned power companies instead of the companies that were parties to the arbitration agreement. A Division Bench of Justices Debangsu Basak and Md. Shabbar Rashidi held that the award, which fastened liability on the managing director of Bihar State Power Generation Company Limited and the chairman of Bihar State Power Holding Company Limited, could not be sustained since the arbitration agreement admittedly existed only with the two companies. “In such circumstances, as the award passed are against two individuals, who are separate and distinct from the persons with whom the claimant in the arbitration proceedings entered into the arbitration agreement, the award cannot be sustained,” the court said.
Non-Signatory Successor Company May Invoke Arbitration Clause After Merger: Calcutta High Court
Case Title : Tata Capital Ltd vs Arvind Manjhi
Case Number : AP-COM/40/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 44
The Calcutta High Court has recently held that a company that becomes the successor of an original contracting party pursuant to an NCLT-approved merger can invoke an arbitration clause even if it is not a signatory to the original agreement. Justice Shampa Sarkar made the observation on February 3 while hearing an application filed by Tata Capital Limited seeking appointment of an arbitrator in a dispute arising out of a loan agreement with a borrower. “In my prima facie view, even if the petitioner is a non-signatory, in view of the merger, the petitioner can invoke arbitration as the successor of the erstwhile lender,” the court said. The court noted that the loan agreement defined the term “lender” to include its successors and assigns. It also recorded that the arbitration notice clearly disclosed the merger and explained how Tata Capital had stepped into the shoes of the original lender. The notice was received by the borrower, who raised no objection to Tata Capital's locus. Relying on the apex court's rulings on non-signatories in Chloro Controls India Pvt Ltd v Severn Trent Water Purification Inc and Cox and Kings Ltd v SAP India Pvt Ltd and the doctrine of competence-competence, the court observed that questions relating to arbitrability, limitation, and jurisdiction were matters to be decided by the arbitral tribunal.
Case Title : Aditya Almal & Anr. v. The First Land Acquisition Collector, Kolkata & Anr.
Case Number : WPO 1531 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 62
The Calcutta High Court has recently refused to appoint an Arbitrator to determine compensation for the period from April 1, 1992 to January 12, 2023, during which the Kolkata Municipal Corporation (KMC) continued to occupy a private property after expiry of requisition, holding that once the requisition ended, the statutory arbitration mechanism under the West Bengal Premises Requisition and Control (Temporary Provision) Act, 1947, could no longer be invoked. “The rent compensation for a premises cannot be fixed by the Arbitrator under Section 11(1)(b) of the 1947 Act during the period the property continues to remain with the State without any authority of law,” the Court observed, concluding that “no direction can be passed upon the State Government to appoint an Arbitrator under Section 11(1)(b) of the 1947 Act for determination of compensation for the period from April 1, 1992 till January 12, 2023.”, it said.
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.”
Case Title : Srikanta Patra v. IndusInd Bank Ltd.
Case Number : CO 4388 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 76
The Calcutta High Court held in a dispute between a borrower and IndusInd Bank that even if an arbitration clause permits unilateral appointment of an arbitrator by one party, such a condition would invalidate only the appointment procedure and not the arbitration agreement itself. In a judgment dated March 23, 2026, Justice Om Narayan Rai upheld the referral of the dispute to arbitration while affirming an order of the City Civil Court, Calcutta, which had stayed a civil suit filed by borrower Srikanta Patra and referred the parties to arbitration under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. “The petitioner's contention that the arbitration clause is invalid since the same provides for unilateral appointment of arbitrator by the lender does not appeal. In the considered view of this Court, such a condition would render the unilateral process of appointment of arbitrator invalid but not the arbitration agreement itself", it held.
Case Title : Ugro Capital Ltd vs Vallabh Metal Industries Ltd And Anr.
Case Number : AP-COM 735 OF 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 67
The Calcutta High Court has held that while exercising jurisdiction to extend the mandate of an arbitral tribunal under Section 29A of the Arbitration Act, the court is concerned only with whether extension of time is warranted and cannot examine the merits of issues pending before the tribunal.
While deciding a petition filed by UGRO Capital Ltd seeking extension of the mandate of a sole arbitrator in a dispute with Vallabh Metal Industries, Justice Gaurang Kanth observed:
“In any event, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, this Court is concerned only with the question whether extension of the mandate is warranted and not with the merits of issues pending before the Tribunal.”
Case Title : TD-ITD CEM Joint Venture v. Kolkata Metro Rail Corporation Limited
Case Number : APOT No. 298 of 2025 with GA-COM/1/2025 and GA-COM/2/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 69
The Calcutta High Court recently dismissed an appeal filed by a contractor, affirming a single judge's decision that had set aside an arbitral award arising out of the 2019 Kolkata East-West Metro tunnel accident.
A Division Bench of Justice Debangsu Basak and Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi held that the arbitral tribunal committed patent illegality by discarding expert evidence on the basis of its own technical assumptions drawn from personal expertise rather than material on record.
The bench observed:
"We have noted that the arbitral tribunal, while deciding the issues, imputed its personal expertise in civil engineering and concluded that the report submitted by IIT, Madras may not be conclusive and it was dependent upon several other factors. However, such findings were not based on any concrete evidence rather, it was mere assumption based on the personal knowledge and experience of the tribunal and the same was used to discard positive evidence adduced by the respondent".
'Purported Award' Can Be Challenged Under Section 34 Of Arbitration Act: Calcutta High Court
Case Title : SREI Equipment Finance Limited v. Roadwings International Private Limited
Case Number : AP-COM 529 of 2022 (With Connected Matters)
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 70
The Calcutta High Court on Friday held that the scope of challenge under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 extends beyond existing awards to include a “purported award” where the very existence of the award is in dispute.
A Single Bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya held that “For the purpose of furtherance of the objective of the 1996 Act and to avoid rendering its provisions nugatory by relegating the parties to the rigmarole of a regular civil suit, the power to entertain a challenge even on the ground of non-existence of a purported award has to be read into the fabric of Section 34 itself. In order to achieve such objective, the expression “an arbitral award” in Section 34 has to be read up to include “or a purported award” as well. If so construed, a challenge to a so-called award on the ground of non-existence of such award will come under the umbrella of Section 34 itself, subject, of course, to the grounds stipulated in Section 34 being otherwise attracted.”
Calcutta High Court Orders Enforcement of ₹1.34 Crore Arbitral Award Against L&T
Case Title: UK MECHANICAL ENGINEERING PVT LTD VERSUS LARSEN AND TOUBRO LTD
Case Number : EC-COM 311 OF 2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 97
The Calcutta High Court recently directed enforcement of an arbitral award of about Rs.1.34 crore in favour of UK Mechanical Engineering Pvt. Ltd. against Larsen & Toubro Ltd., holding that the award had attained finality and must be executed as it stands, while declining to grant any enhanced interest on the differential amount.
Justice Gaurang Kanth was dealing with an execution petition filed under Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act seeking enforcement of the arbitral award dated September 19, 2023. The dispute in execution arose over the computation of pre-award interest, which was contested by the award debtor.
“At this stage, it is apposite to note that the present analysis stands fortified by the settled principles governing the scope of execution and the finality of arbitral awards. It is well established that an executing court cannot go behind the decree or award and is bound to enforce it as it stands, without undertaking any exercise of modification, variation, or reinterpretation. This principle applies with equal force to proceedings under Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. It is equally settled that where an arbitral award is not challenged under Section 34, nor subjected to correction or interpretation under Section 33, it attains finality and becomes binding on the parties", it held.
Section 17 Security In Tribunal Domain, Courts To Interfere Only On Perversity: Calcutta High Court
Case Title : Saltee Infrastructure Limited v Shivam Industrial Parks and Estates Ltd
Case Number : APOT 259 OF 2025, GA-COM 2 OF 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 90
The Calcutta High Court on 1 April, held that courts can interfere with interim measures granted by an Arbitral Tribunal under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 only in cases of perversity or arbitrariness and affirmed that the Tribunal retains discretion to determine the quantum of security. A Bench of Justice Gaurang Kanth dismissed the appeal filed by Saltee Infrastructure Limited and upheld the Arbitrator's order dated 16 May 2025 directing furnishing of security, finding no perversity or arbitrariness in the exercise of discretion. It observed:
“The determination of the quantum of security to be furnished, in the context of an application under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, squarely falls within the domain and discretion of the Arbitral Tribunal.”
Case Title : Pho Com Net Pvt Ltd and And v. The Office of the Chief Electoral Officer
Case Number : APO/80/2025 WITH WPO/509/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 94
The Calcutta High Court has refused to interfere with a show-cause notice issued to Pho Com Net Pvt Ltd in connection with a Rs. 25.9 crore contract for providing webcasting and live monitoring services during the 2024 Lok Sabha elections, holding that the dispute raised involves contested factual issues not suited for adjudication in writ jurisdiction. Upholding a Single Judge's decision to dismiss the company's writ petition, a Division Bench of Justices Arijit Banerjee and Apurba Sinha Ray found no infirmity in the ruling, observing that the matter arose out of a contractual dispute requiring factual determination. The court said:
“We therefore do not find any infirmity in the judgment and order under appeal. The learned Single Judge has duly recorded the facts of the case and has applied the correct law in dismissing the writ petition. It is a well-considered and well-reasoned judgment which does not warrant interference.”
Case Title : Mackintosh Burn Limited vs. Damodar Valley Corporation
Case Number : AO-COM 17 of 2025 with IA No. CAN 1 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 95
The Calcutta High Court has dismissed an appeal seeking modification of the conditions of stay of an arbitral award to permit withdrawal of about Rs. 61.20 crore, holding that such orders are not appealable under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act. The court clarified that a post-award application that does not seek protection or preservation of the subject matter cannot be treated as an interim measure appealable.
Rejecting Mackintosh Burn Limited's bid to withdraw about Rs 61.20 crore deposited as security, Justice Debangsu Basak and Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi held that merely citing a particular provision does not determine the nature of the application and emphasised the distinction between Section 9, which deals with interim measures for protection and preservation, and Section 36, which governs stay of enforcement of an award.
The bench observed that, “If repeat application under Section 36 of the Act of 1996 when such application is confined to measures to be put in place under Section 36 of the Act of 1996 that is to say that, condition for grant of stay of the enforcement of the award impugned under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 then, such repeat application by no stretch of imagination can be classified to be one under Section 9 of the Act of 1996, sans any other details. In absence of relief being sought by an applicant for protection and preservation of the subject matter of the disputes referred to in arbitration, post the award, an application simplicitor touching on the modalities for grant of stay of enforcement of the arbitral award, cannot be treated to be an application under Section 9 of the Act of 1996.”
Calcutta High Court Restores Arbitral Award In Bhubaneswar Airport Terminal Construction Dispute
Case Title : M/s NBCC India Limited Vs. M/s J.G. Engineers Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : AO-COM 13 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 96
The Calcutta High Court on Thursday set aside a Single Judge's order that had interfered with an arbitral award in a dispute over construction of a terminal and allied buildings at Bhubaneswar Airport. The court held that the court exercising jurisdiction under Section 34 cannot substitute the arbitrator's plausible view with its own. A Division Bench of Justices Debangsu Basak and Md. Shabbar Rashidi was hearing appeals filed by NBCC India Limited against the July 1, 2024 order by which the Single Judge had allowed the contractor's challenge, set aside the counterclaims awarded to NBCC, and dismissed NBCC's own challenge to the arbitral award.
Setting aside that order, the Bench held that the Single Judge had exceeded the limited scope of interference under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. It said the arbitral award was based on evidence and reflected a possible view, which could not have been disturbed.
Profits Earned Do Not Negate Damages Claim In Arbitration: Calcutta High Court
Case Title : SRMB SRIJAN LIMITED -VS- GREAT EASTERN ENERGY CORPORATION LIMITED
Case Number : AO-COM 30 OF 2024 WITH AP-COM 281 OF 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 86
On Monday, 13 April, the Calcutta High Court held that earning profits does not, by itself, defeat a claim for damages arising from breach of contract and upheld the arbitral award in favour of Great Eastern Energy Corporation Limited (GEECL) A Division Bench of Justices Arijit Banerjee and Om Narayan Rai dismissed SRMB Srijan Ltd's appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, clarifying that damages are not limited to actual loss but also include loss of expected or additional profits.
The judges observed: “If a person earns profits by employing all avenues that he has, he cannot be said to have failed in mitigating his damages. But, can such earning of profit alone always lead to the conclusion that there has been no damage at all? The answer has to be in the negative as there can be situations where a person could be entitled to more profits than what he has actually earned but has been deprived of the further profit element due to the breach of the contract complained of.”
Case Title : Starlift Services Private Limited v. Syama Prasad Mookerjee Port, Kolkata; State of West Bengal v. Rajpath Contractors and Engineers Ltd & Anr.
Case Number : APO/48/2021 with AP/590/2011; APO/141/2023 with AP/915/2011
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 87
The Calcutta High Court on 9 April held that once a Commercial Division is constituted under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, non-commercial benches cease to have jurisdiction to decide commercial arbitration matters, and any judgment delivered thereafter is a nullity.
The Court held: “If a non- Commercial Court or a non-Commercial Division proceeds to decide a commercial dispute involving a specified value, subsequent to the constitution of the Commercial Division, in which such proceedings was pending before the Court, then, on the score that such non-Commercial Court decided the rights between the parties on a procedural regime different to those prescribed under the Act of 2015, the decision rendered would be vitiated.”
Case Title : Percept Talent Management Limited and Anr vs. Sourav Chandidas Ganguly
Case Number : AO-COM/23/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 88
The Calcutta High Court on Thursday dismissed an appeal by Percept Talent Management Ltd., upholding a Rs. 14.49 crore arbitral award in favour of former Indian cricketer Sourav Ganguly and finding that the company had lost its right to terminate a 2003 Player Representation Agreement by waiting too long and continuing to act as his agent. The judgment was delivered on April 16, 2026 by a Division Bench of Justice Debangsu Basak and Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi.
The court also upheld the arbitral tribunal's finding that payments Ganguly received from the IPL franchise Kolkata Knight Riders (KKR) did not fall within the revenue-sharing arrangement under the Player Representation Agreement (PRA), which governed his commercial and endorsement rights.
Case Title : Tapas Kumar Das v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited
Case Number : APOT/32/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 84
The Calcutta High Court has upheld a Single Judge's order setting aside an arbitral award after noting that the arbitrator had entered into constitutional considerations under Article 12 (Definition of State) in a dispute arising purely out of a commercial contract involving Indian Oil Corporation Limited. It observed that such an approach was misplaced and further held that the arbitrator had rewritten the terms of the contract and awarded damages without any supporting evidence.
A Division Bench of Justices Debangsu Basak and Md. Shabbar Rashidi held that, "Learned Single Judge also noted that, learned Arbitrator embarked upon a discussion as to the applicability of Constitutional provisions as, the respondent is an authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Learned Single Judge held that the contract between the parties was voluntarily undertaken and that there was no scope to enter into the arena of infringement of constitutional right as done by the learned Arbitrator."
Case Title: The Asia Health Care Development Private Limited v. State of West Bengal & Others
Case Number: WPA 17068 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 126
The Calcutta High Court has recently held that pending arbitration over a lease dispute does not by itself prevent public authorities from initiating eviction proceedings under the West Bengal Public Land (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act against an alleged unauthorised occupant of public land.
Justice Om Narayan Rai, however, set aside the impugned eviction notice after finding that the statutory authority had acted with a prejudged and influenced mind.
Explaining why the pending arbitration did not automatically bar the statutory proceedings, the Court said:
“The mere existence of that pending jurisdictional inquiry before the arbitrator does not strip the Collector of his separate statutory authority to issue a show-cause notice under Section 3 of the 1962 Act. In any case estoppel would apply only if the arbitral remedy would be validly available for resolution of the dispute in question.”
Case Title : THE PEERLESS GENERAL FINANCE AND INVESTMENT COMPANY LIMITED VERSUS GANGULY HOME SEARCH PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANR
Case Number: AP-COM 69 OF 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 128
The Calcutta High Court on 19 May held that where a series of agreements form part of a single, continuous commercial transaction, an arbitration clause in the original agreement survives in subsequent arrangements unless the later agreement clearly and unambiguously shows an intention to abandon arbitration.
Justice Gaurang Kanth allowed a Section 11 petition filed by The Peerless General Finance and Investment Company Ltd and appointed former Judge of the Calcutta High Court, Justice Indra Prasanna Mukerji, as sole arbitrator in disputes arising out of a series of agreements with Ganguly Home Search Pvt Ltd relating to a real-estate project. The Single-Judge Bench held:
“On the question of the survival of the arbitration clause, this Court is of the considered view that where a series of agreements form part of a single, integrated, and continuing commercial transaction, and where the earlier agreements contain a broad arbitration clause covering all disputes and differences arising in connection with the said transaction, the said arbitration clause does not get extinguished merely by reason of execution of a subsequent agreement which is silent on the point, unless there is a clear, express, and unambiguous provision in the subsequent agreement indicating that the parties intended to abandon and give up the right to arbitrate.”
Dispute Over Partnership Deed Validity Cannot Defeat Arbitration Agreement: Calcutta High Court
Case Title: SMT. JULI BHAGAT VERSUS SRI ALOK BHAGAT AND ORS.
Case Number : AP-COM 907 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 129
The Calcutta High Court on 18 May held that a party cannot defeat an arbitration agreement merely by disputing the validity or genuineness of partnership deeds containing the arbitration clause. It observed that allowing such a challenge at the referral stage would undermine the doctrine of Kompetenz-Kompetenz under Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
Justice Gaurang Kanth allowed a Section 11 petition filed by Juli Bhagat and appointed Advocate Chayan Gupta as sole arbitrator to adjudicate disputes arising from partnership deeds executed with Alok Bhagat and other family members concerning management of hotel properties of Late Arvind Bhagat. He observed:
“It would be a manifest incongruity to hold that namely because a party disputes the validity of the deed containing the arbitration clause, the Court must therefore refuse to refer the dispute to arbitration. Such an approach would effectively enable a party to defeat the arbitration agreement merely by raising a challenge to the underlying document, which is precisely what the doctrine of Kompetenz-Kompetenz, as enshrined in Section 16 of the Act, seeks to prevent.”
Case Title: M/s Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited v. Sayan Goswami and Anr.
Case Number : EC-COM 248 of 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 120
The Calcutta High Court has refused to enforce an ex parte arbitral award in favour of Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Ltd., holding that a lender cannot indirectly secure the appointment of a sole arbitrator through an arbitral institution of its own choosing when the borrowers have neither consented to the process nor participated in it.
Justice Gaurang Kanth held, “The law does not permit such a stratagem. The prohibition engrafted by Section 12(5) and the judicial decisions thereunder is directed not merely at the formal act of appointing an arbitrator, but at the substance of the process, the unilateral control by an interested party over the constitution of the tribunal that is to adjudicate its own claims. Whether that control is exercised directly through a personal appointment, or indirectly through the unilateral invocation of an institutional mechanism, the vices of partiality, inequality and conflict of interest are identical. The form cannot save what the substance condemns"
Case Title : IDFC First Bank Limited and Another v. Shyamsundar Distributor and Another
Case Number : FMA 1389 of 2025 with IA No. CAN 1 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 122
The Calcutta High Court has dismissed IDFC First Bank Limited's appeal against a trial court order that refused to send a loan dispute to arbitration and struck off the bank's defence for failing to act within time.
A division bench of Justice Debangsu Basak and Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi upheld the order, finding that the bank had waited nearly 11 months after entering appearance in the suit before seeking arbitration.
“In the case at hand, as noted above, the appellant/defendant came up with an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 after about 11 months of its first appearance in the suit which came to be rejected by the learned Trial Court on the ground that the same was filed much after the expiry of the time prescribed for putting in the statement of defence,” the bench observed.
“Therefore, in view of the discussions made hereinabove, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned order. The same is hereby affirmed. Accordingly, the instant appeal being FMA 1389 of 2025 is hereby dismissed,” it added.
Delay In Challenging Arbitral Award Not Condoned When Party Lacks Due Diligence: Calcutta High Court
Case Title : Kamlesh Kumar Agarwala v. The Estate of Manjan Devi Patni, represented by Nirmal Kumar Jain
Case Number: APO 27 of 2021 with AP 74 of 2019
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 132
The Calcutta High Court on 20 May held that a party cannot invoke Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to save a delayed challenge to an arbitral award after pursuing proceedings before the wrong forum without due diligence and bona fide conduct.
A Division Bench of Justices Debangsu Basak and Md. Shabbar Rashidi also held that once the High Court entertains an application under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, exclusive jurisdiction thereafter vests in it for all subsequent arbitral proceedings, including a challenge to the award and dismissed an appeal filed by Kamlesh Kumar Agarwala. It observed:
“In order to avail the benefits under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, the party claiming benefits has to establish that there was observance of due diligence on the part of such party in pursuing the proceedings in the wrong forum.”
Case Title : PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, G. T. A. DARJEELING Vs M/S. MOHINDRA TUBES LIMITED
Case Number : AP-COM 382 OF 2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 121
The Calcutta High Court on 13 May held that non-compliance with the mandatory pre-deposit requirement under Section 19 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 does not, by itself, bar restoration of a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
A Bench comprising Justice Gaurang Kanth allowed a restoration application filed by the Public Health Engineering Department, Gorkhaland Territorial Administration and restored its Section 34 petition challenging an MSME Facilitation Council award in favour of Mohindra Tubes Ltd. He held:
“The proposition that non-compliance with Section 19 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 ipso facto bars the entertainment or allowing of a Restoration Application is neither supported by the plain text of the statute, nor by any binding or persuasive judicial authority placed before this Court. This Court accordingly declines to accept the said proposition.”
Case Title : Kessels Engineering Works Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Neo Metalicks Limited
Case Number: AP-COM/245/2024, IA No: GA/1/2022
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 136
The Calcutta High Court has set aside an arbitral award in favour of Neo Metaliks Limited, holding that a dissenting arbitrator cannot be excluded from deliberations and given the majority award only after it has been finalised.
Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya passed the ruling while allowing Kessels Engineering Works Pvt Ltd's challenge to the award and staying operation of the judgment for 30 days.
Justice Bhattacharyya observed, “Deliberation between the co-arbitrators in a multi-member Arbitral Tribunal is an essential ingredient of party autonomy, since the parties agree upon and submit to adjudication by all the members and not by any one or some of them. Such basic tenet goes for a toss if one of the Arbitrators is kept out of the loop by the others while preparing the award.”
The court added, “Although a dissenting Arbitrator has a right to dissent, such dissent has to be an informed decision and not a post facto adjudication after the majority award is finalized, delivered and only then handed over to him, without prior consultation.”
Case Title : L AND T FINANCE LIMITED VS AMINA FUELS AND ORS.
Case Number: EC-COM 293 OF 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 119
The Calcutta High Court has recently held that a party interested in the outcome of an arbitration dispute cannot indirectly control the appointment of a sole arbitrator by unilaterally approaching an arbitration institution of its own choosing.
“The law does not permit such a stratagem. The prohibition engrafted by Section 12(5) and the judicial decisions thereunder is directed not merely at the formal act of appointing an arbitrator, but at the substance of the process, the unilateral control by an interested party over the constitution of the tribunal that is to adjudicate its own claims,” Justice Gaurang Kanth held,
“Whether that control is exercised directly through a personal appointment, or indirectly through the unilateral invocation of an institutional mechanism, the vices of partiality, inequality and conflict of interest are identical. The form cannot save what the substance condemns,” the court added.
Pending IBC Proceedings Do Not Bar Arbitration Referral: Calcutta HC In SREI-Orissa Steel Dispute
Case Title :SREI Infrastructure Finance Limited & Anr. v. Orissa Steel Expressway Private Limited
Case Number: AP-COM/595/2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 113
The Calcutta High Court has referred a dispute between SREI group entities and Orissa Steel Expressway Private Limited to arbitration. It held that objections based on pending insolvency proceedings, allegations of fraud, and the status of a non-signatory claimant must be decided by the arbitral tribunal, not at the stage of appointing an arbitrator.
“Thus, the question of arbitrability of the disputes and supremacy of IBC over the arbitral proceeding, will have to be decided by the learned Arbitrator, upon appreciation of evidence," a single-judge bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar held.
“As the scope of the referral court is limited only to the satisfaction of the existence of the arbitration agreement, Mr. Das's contentions against the maintainability of this application are not accepted,” She added.
Case Title :Tata Steel Limited Vs Msp Sponge Iron Limited
Case Number : AP-COM/297/2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 112
Participation in arbitration proceedings cannot validate proceedings before a tribunal that was not constituted in accordance with law, the Calcutta High Court has held while setting aside an arbitral award in a dispute between Tata Steel Limited and MSP Sponge Iron Limited.
“The participation of the petitioner before a forum which was not constituted as per law and did not have the jurisdiction to decide the dispute is inconsequential. A party who cannot act as an arbitrator, cannot also choose an arbitrator," Justice Shampa Sarkar held.
Case Title :Malathy Constructions vs Bridge and Roof Co. India Ltd.
Case Number: AP-COM 61 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 114
The Calcutta High Court has recently held that arbitral proceedings cannot be validly commenced on the basis of a vague or ambiguous invocation notice that fails to clearly identify the arbitration agreement or clause relied upon, or is not shown to have been received by the opposing party.
Justice Gaurang Kanth held, “The Section 21 notice is not a mere procedural formality, rather it is a jurisdictional prerequisite that marks the very commencement of arbitration proceedings.”
He added, “A notice that is vague, ambiguous, or fails to identify the arbitration agreement or clause sought to be invoked, or a notice that does not clearly indicate that arbitration is being invoked as the dispute resolution mechanism under the Act, does not satisfy the requirements of Section 21 and cannot be treated as constituting a valid commencement of arbitration proceedings.”
Case Title : M/s Electronica Finance Limited vs Quality Offset Printers & Ors.
Case Number : A.P. COM No. 610 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 101
The Calcutta High Court has held, in the facts of a loan dispute, that borrowers who failed to object to the choice of arbitration venue despite notice and participated in earlier proceedings before Kolkata courts could not later challenge jurisdiction, as their conduct amounted to consent.
A Single Bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar allowed an application filed by Electronica Finance Limited and appointed advocate Deepan Kumar Sarkar as the sole arbitrator to adjudicate disputes with Quality Offset Printers and others.
“The submissions of the learned Advocate for the respondents as recorded by Their Lordships, do not indicate that any question of jurisdiction was raised in the appeal, which means that the respondents did not have any objection with regard to the choice of venue of the arbitration being Kolkata and jurisdiction of the courts at Kolkata over the subject matter of the dispute. The notice invoking arbitration clearly mentioned in paragraphs 6, 7 and 8 that the lender had chosen Kolkata as the venue of the arbitral proceedings and the courts at Kolkata to have jurisdiction over the said agreement,” the Court noted, before adding:
“In the factual matrix of this case, consent of the respondents to anchor the arbitral proceeding at Kolkata is available from the conduct.”
Calcutta High Court Temporarily Stays Arbitral Award In Tata Nano Singur Land Acquisition Dispute
Case Title : WEST BENGAL INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. VERSUS TATA MOTORS LIMITED
Case Number : AP-COM/88/2024
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 104
The Calcutta High Court on Thursday (May 7) temporarily stayed for eight weeks the enforcement of a ₹765.78 crore arbitral award passed in favour of Tata Motors Ltd against the West Bengal Industrial Development Corporation Ltd (WBIDC) in the dispute over the acquisition of land in Singur for Tata's Nano factory.
An arbitral tribunal had, on October 30, 2023 directed WBIDC to pay Tata Motors ₹765.78 crore with interest at 11% per annum.
Justice Aniruddha Roy granted an unconditional interim stay on operation and enforcement of the award. The Court clarified that the stay would automatically stand vacated after eight weeks if WBIDC failed to either furnish an undertaking securing the award amount or deposit the directed cash security.
“There shall be an unconditional stay of the impugned award till eight weeks from date. Thereafter, if the undertaking is not filed before the Registrar, Original Side or the cash security is not deposited as the case may be, as directed herein, within the said period of eight weeks, the stay will automatically be vacated.”, it held.
Calcutta High Court Upholds ₹151 Crore Arbitral Award On Restitution In Coal Block Dispute
Case Title : WEST BENGAL MINERAL DEVELOPMENT AND TRADING CORPORATION LTD. VS TRANS DAMODAR COAL MINING PVT. LTD.
Case Number : AP-COM/172/2024
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 110
The Calcutta High Court on 5 May upheld major portions of an arbitral award of about Rs. 151 crore in favour of Trans Damodar Coal Mining Pvt Ltd in a dispute arising from cancellation of coal block allocation after the Supreme Court's 2014 judgments.
Justice Shampa Sarkar held that even though the mining contract became void after the Supreme Court struck down coal block allocations in 2014, the arbitral tribunal could still grant limited restitutionary relief under the Contract Act and the Coal Mines (Special Provisions) Act, 2015 to prevent unjust enrichment between the parties. She held:
“The Arbitrator rightly held that, if the contract was void, any party who may have taken advantage under such a void contract, should refund the advantage or compensate to the person from whom such advantage was received, under the provision of Contract Act. The decision of the learned Arbitrator was made on the principle of equity, that no one should unjustly enrich himself at another's expense. The principle of restitution would not be applicable if the agreement was void ab initio, and the parties knowingly entered into the illegal or void contract.”
Kolkata East-West Metro: Calcutta High Court Upholds Arbitral Award In Favour Of KMRC
Case Title : ITD-ITD CEM JOINT VENTURE VERSUS KOLKATA METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD.
Case Number: AP-COM 181 OF 2024
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 107
The Calcutta High Court on Friday dismissed a challenge filed by ITD-ITD CEM Joint Venture against an arbitral award arising from the Kolkata East-West Metro Railway Project. It upheld the award in favour of Kolkata Metro Rail Corporation Ltd (KMRC).
Justice Gaurang Kanth rejected the contractor's petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The challenge was to portions of an arbitral award dated November 21, 2019.
The Court held that the arbitral tribunal's findings neither ignored the contract nor traveled beyond its terms. It said the tribunal had taken a plausible and reasoned view based on the contract and the evidence.
“The decisions relied upon by the Petitioner pertain to cases where the arbitral award was found to be in disregard of the contractual framework or vitiated by manifest illegality. In the present case, the findings of the Tribunal neither ignore the contract nor traverse beyond its terms; rather, they represent a plausible and reasoned view based on interpretation of the contract and appreciation of evidence. In the absence of any demonstrable perversity, patent illegality, or violation of public policy, the scope of interference under Section 34 remains limited, and the reliance placed on the aforesaid judgments is, therefore, misplaced.” the Court held.
Mere Delay Or Inaction Does Not Amount To Abandonment Of Arbitration: Calcutta High Court
Case Title: MIPL DRAIPL JV VERSUS EASTERN RAILWAY
Case Number : AP-COM 1007 OF 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 102
The Calcutta High Court has held that mere delay or inaction cannot, by itself, lead to an inference of abandonment of arbitration, emphasising that there must be a clear and conscious intention to relinquish the arbitral remedy.
Justice Gaurang Kanth allowed a petition by MIPL DRAIPL JV in a dispute with Eastern Railway and appointed a substitute arbitrator after terminating the earlier arbitrator's mandate.
“In law, abandonment cannot be readily inferred from mere inaction or delay. It must be established that there was a clear, unequivocal, and conscious intention on the part of the party to relinquish the arbitral remedy. The test is not merely of lapse of time, but of intention as discernible from the conduct of the party.”
Case Title: M/S. MHPL INFRA JV AND ORS. VERSUS RITES LIMITED AND ANR.
Case Number: AP-COM 153 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 147
The Calcutta High Court on Friday appointed a sole arbitrator to adjudicate disputes between MHPL Infra JV and RITES Ltd arising from a railway infrastructure contract connected with the Buxar Thermal Power Project at Chausa, Bihar.
Justice Gaurang Kanth appointed Advocate Sabir Ahmed as the sole arbitrator. The Court held that a valid arbitration clause existed between the parties. It also found that the petition for appointment of an arbitrator had been filed within the prescribed limitation period.
"Applying the aforesaid settled legal position to the facts of the present case, this Court finds that both the conditions precedent for exercise of jurisdiction under Section 11 of the Act are satisfied. As regards the first condition, namely the existence of a valid arbitration agreement, it is anadmitted position between the parties that an arbitration clause exists in Clause 25 of the General Conditions of Contract as amended through Correction Slip No. 3 of the agreement dated August 26, 2021,” the court ruled.
Case Title : KOBELCO CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED VS LARA MINING AND ANR.
Case Number: AO-COM/18/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 149
The Calcutta High Court has left open the question of whether an arbitration agreement contained in two Master Facility Agreements was validly assigned to Kobelco Construction Equipment India Pvt. Ltd. through a settlement with SREI Equipment Finance Ltd.
The Court held that the issue should be decided by the appropriate forum and not in the present appeals.
A Division Bench of Justices Debangsu Basak and Md. Shabbar Rashidi ruled that findings made by a Single Judge on the non-existence of an arbitration agreement would not bind future proceedings.
“In such view, the issue as to whether or not, there exist a valid arbitration agreement between the parties is kept open to be decided by the appropriate forum. The observations and the findings returned by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment and order will not prejudice any of the parties in the subsequent proceedings. All points raised by the parties in this regard are kept open to be decided by the appropriate forum.”, the court ruled.
Case Title : KANCHAN KONWER AND ANR. VERSUS TUSHAR KANTI JANA
Case Number : AP 48 OF 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 152
On 18 June, the Calcutta High Court held that pecuniary jurisdiction alone cannot confer jurisdiction under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, in the absence of territorial jurisdiction, reiterating that both conditions must coexist for a court to entertain a challenge to an arbitral award.
Justice Gaurang Kanth dismissed a petition filed by Kanchan Konwer and another, the widow and son of late Tapan Konwer, who challenged an arbitral award passed in favour of developer Tushar Kanti Jana, holding that the Original Side of the Calcutta High Court lacked territorial jurisdiction to hear the Section 34 petition. He held:
“Pecuniary jurisdiction by itself does not confer jurisdiction upon a court in the absence of territorial jurisdiction. The two requirements operate cumulatively and not alternatively. A court may possess pecuniary competence to entertain a matter; however, unless territorial jurisdiction is also established in accordance with law, such court cannot assume jurisdiction merely on the basis of the valuation of the claim.”
Case Title : Rajpath Contractors and Engineers Ltd. v. Union of India and Anr.
Case Number : AP-COM 247 of 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 156
The Calcutta High Court has recently referred a ₹38.07 crore dispute arising out of an Eastern Railway bridge construction contract to arbitration, reiterating that the existence of a No Claim Certificate does not, by itself, render disputes non-arbitrable.
Justice Gaurang Kanth constituted a three-member arbitral tribunal headed by former Supreme Court judge Justice Pinaki Chandra Ghose, with Senior Advocates Ritzu Ghosal and Saptangshu Basu as co-arbitrators.
"It is well settled that the existence of a No Claim Certificate, by itself, does not oust the jurisdiction of the Arbitral Tribunal or render the disputes non-arbitrable," the court observed.
Case Title : Vizag Seaport Private Limited v. Steel Authority of India Limited
Case Number : APO 112 of 2022 with IA No. GA/1/2022
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 159
The Calcutta High Court has recently dismissed an appeal filed by Vizag Seaport Private Limited (VSPL) and upheld an earlier order setting aside a majority arbitral award.
The award had directed the Steel Authority of India Ltd. (SAIL) to pay nearly ₹19.68 crore towards claimed demurrage and storage charges.
The court held that the parties' Short Term Agreement (STA) did not provide for such charges. It also held that VSPL had waived its right to claim them by not seeking to include such a provision when the contract was reviewed.
A division bench of Justices Arijit Banerjee and Om Narayan Rai observed that the agreement contained no express provision permitting recovery of demurrage charges.
"The terms and conditions of the STA do not expressly provide for demurrage charges. Therefore, if the same were to be levied the same ought to have been included while reviewing the terms. Not having done so would mean waiver of the appellant's right to claim such charge.", the court held.
Madras High Court
Case Title : M/s Angel One Limited v. S.X.J. Vasan
Case Number : Arb.O.P.(Com.Div.) No.417 of 2023
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 30
The Madras High Court has upheld an arbitral award directing Angel One Limited to pay Rs 48.77 lakh with interest to its client, holding that the squaring off of shares by the broker was illegal. The court found no ground to interfere with the award under the limited scope of a challenge to an arbitral decision. Justice N. Anand Venkatesh said the sole arbitrator's conclusion was based on a proper appreciation of evidence.
The court made clear that it could not re-examine the merits merely because another view was possible. "This finding of the sole Arbitrator to the effect that the squaring off done by the petitioner on 21.1.2016 was illegal is certainly a possible view on appreciation of evidence. Just because there is a possibility of taking a different view based on the evidence available on record, that cannot be a ground to interfere with the finding and the law on this issue is too well settled.", it said.
Madras High Court Sets Aside Arbitral Award After Railways Unilaterally Appointed Tribunal
Case Title : RPN Engineers Chennai Pvt. Ltd. v. The General Manager, Integral Coach Factory & Anr.
Case Number : Arbitration Original Petition (Com.Div.) No.503 of 2022 and Application No.4187 of 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 27 T
The Madras High Court has recently struck down an arbitral award in a dispute with the Integral Coach Factory after finding that the Railways unilaterally appointed the arbitral tribunal, even though the contractor had clearly objected to the process. Justice N. Anand Venkatesh held that the arbitral award stood “vitiated due to lack of jurisdiction” since the tribunal had been unilaterally constituted. Finding that the award had been passed without jurisdiction, the court set it aside, while leaving it open to the parties to seek the appointment of a fresh arbitral tribunal in accordance with law.
Bias of Even One Arbitrator Taints Entire Arbitral Award: Madras High Court
Case Title : M/s.Muthu Construction v. Union of India
Case Number : Arbitration O.P.(Com.Div.) No.603 of 2022
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 24
The Madras High Court has set aside an arbitral award, holding that the bias of even a single arbitrator is sufficient to vitiate the entire award, even where the decision is unanimous. Justice N. Anand Venkatesh said parties are entitled to an arbitral tribunal that is impartial in its entirety and not merely a neutral majority. Bias, the court held, violates Section 18 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which requires equal treatment of parties, and also goes against the fundamental policy of Indian law.
The court observed, “It is impossible to know whether or to what extent the participation of the biased member affected the tribunal's decision. It cannot be assumed that the presumed impartiality and independence of one of the co-arbitrators of the panel rendered it harmless. In other words, a party is entitled to an independent and impartial tribunal, which means that all the members of the tribunal must be impartial and without bias. In the absence of the same, the bias of even a single member will necessarily vitiate the award rendered by the Arbitral Tribunal.”
Madras High Court Upholds Arbitral Award Granting Relief To 93 Chennai Port Spillage Workers
Case Title: The Chairperson, Chennai Port Authority v. V. Manoharan & Ors.
Case Number: Arb O.P(COM.DIV.) No. 509 of 2023
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 18
The Madras High Court rejected a petition filed by the Chennai Port Authority, refusing to set aside an arbitral award that directed the port to reinstate spillage-handling workers and grant back wages, gratuity and other service benefits to 93 workers. A single bench of Justice N Anand Venkatesh held that the award did not suffer from any jurisdictional error or patent illegality and did not conflict with public policy. The court observed that the Port Trust, as a State instrumentality, is “is expected to act with a higher degree of fairness than ordinary employers”.
The court accepted the finding that the workers were under the “supervision and control” of the Port Authority and said the arbitrator had balanced the rights of workers who had served the port for decades.
The bench also recorded that the Port Authority had participated in the arbitration without raising any jurisdictional objection at the appropriate stage and could not later “turn around and question the very forum whose jurisdiction it had accepted.”
Madras High Court Quashes ₹1.10 Crore Award Against Annai Builders For "Unintelligible" Findings
Case Title : M/s Annai Builders Real Estate Pvt Ltd v. G.B. Sarath Kumar
Case Number : Arb O.P (Com. Div.) No. 62 of 2021; EP SR No. 123007 of 2023
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 51
The Madras High Court on 17 February set aside a Rs. 1.10 crore arbitral award passed against Annai Builders Real Estate Pvt. Ltd., holding that the arbitrator's findings were unintelligible as two disputed running bills were allowed without examining objections of duplicate claims and excess payment, and by ignoring a detailed 242-page expert report assessing actual construction progress.
A Single Bench of Justice N. Anand Venkatesh held that the award suffered from perversity and patent illegality and set it aside in entirety. The Court observed:
“on an overall reading of the award passed by the Sole Arbitrator, this Court finds that the findings rendered for the main issues are unintelligible and it was given in complete disregard to the evidence available on record and the findings are also mutually contradictory. Hence, this Court is inclined to interfere with the entire award on the ground of perversity and patent illegality”.
Case Title : Volleyball Federation of India v. Baseline Ventures (India) Pvt. Ltd
Case Number : Arb.O.P. (Com.Div.) No. 175 of 2021
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 50
The Madras High Court refused to interfere with an arbitral award directing the Volleyball Federation of India to pay Rs.4 crore as loss of profits to Baseline Ventures, the former promoter of the Pro Volleyball League, holding that the federation's termination of the 2018 agreement was unjustified.
Justice N. Anand Venkatesh held that the award dated November 21, 2020 “does not suffer from any perversity or patent illegality warranting the interference of this Court."
Having found the termination unlawful, the arbitrator had awarded Rs.4 crore towards loss of profits. The Court endorsed the approach adopted for quantifying damages, reiterating that arbitrators are permitted “to employ an honest guesswork and a rough and ready method for quantifying the damages.
Case Title : Sivashankar & Co. vs The Divisional Railway Manager
Case Number : Arb.OP (Com.Div).No.630 of 2022
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 48
Holding that a contract that has already expired cannot thereafter be terminated, the Madras High Court has partly set aside an arbitral award that upheld Southern Railway's termination of a works contract and the consequent forfeiture of deposits.
“The very process of termination presupposes that there is a subsisting contract. If there is no subsisting contract, there is nothing to be terminated thereafter,” Justice N. Anand Venkatesh observed while partly allowing a petition under Section 34 of the arbitration and Conciliation Act filed by Sivashankar & Co.
“The petitioner could not have challenged the termination of contract under Section 9 of the Act since if the petitioner has sought for injuncting the respondent from terminating, it would have been rejected under Section 14 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 since it is capable of being compensated in terms of money,” the court further observed.
Case Title : B.M. Insulation Private Limited v. Vardeep Petro Chemical Private Limited & M/s Saffe Systems v. BGR Energy Systems Limited
Case Number : Arb. Appln. No. 374 of 2025 & Arb. Appln. No. 628 of 2025,
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 41
The Madras High Court has held that interim protection under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, remains available even after an arbitral award is passed and execution proceedings are filed, until the award is fully satisfied. “The words 'before it is enforced' means 'until the complete satisfaction of the award',” a full bench said, rejecting the view that such relief ends once the award becomes enforceable.
A full bench of the High Court said the word 'enforced' in Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act means until the award is fully satisfied, not merely enforceable.
“When Section 9 contemplates a Post-Award protection, the purpose of such interim protection being to secure the property or amount for the benefit of the party which seeks enforcement of the award, no further interpretation can be made which will cripple such interim protection intended to be given to the award holder by the statute.,” the bench held.
Madras High Court Sets Aside ₹7.77-Crore Award Against New India Assurance
Case Title : The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Rajkumar Impex Private Ltd.
Case Number : Arb.O.P.(Com.Div.) No. 223 of 2022
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 40
The Madras High Court has recently set aside a Rs 7.77-crore arbitral award passed against New India Assurance Company Limited, holding that the arbitral tribunal failed to properly examine whether the claimant had the right to maintain the insurance claim after transferring its entire business. Allowing the insurer's challenge, Justice N. Anand Venkatesh held that the tribunal ignored a threshold issue going to the root of the dispute and returned findings that were “bereft of any materials” and based on “mere surmises and conjectures”. Justice Venkatesh held that the tribunal failed to appreciate the legal effect of the Business Transfer Agreement. Treating the transaction as a slump sale, the court observed, “Once it is a slump sale, every other account receivable will stand transferred to the purchaser. The insurance policy amount that is receivable from the petitioner will also obviously stand transferred to the new entity.”
Case Title : MIOT Hospitals Private Limited v. Dr. Balaraman Palaniappan
Case Number : Arb.O.P.(Com.Div.) No.708 of 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 55
Holding that hospitals cannot restrain doctors from practicing their profession after termination of service, the Madras High Court has ruled that post-contract non-compete and non-solicitation clauses in doctor agreements are opposed to public policy and void under the Indian Contract Act. The court said such clauses are unlawful, unenforceable, and void ab initio.
Dismissing a petition filed by MIOT Hospitals Private Limited seeking appointment of a sole arbitrator against cardiothoracic surgeon Dr. Balaraman Palaniappan, Justice N. Anand Venkatesh imposed costs of Rs1 lakh on the hospital, finding that there was no surviving arbitrable dispute.
“An agreement entered into by a doctor with a hospital, which contains a non solicitation and or non compete clause, is certainly opposed to public policy and such an agreement is squarely hit by Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. Consequently, it must be held to be unlawful, unenforceable and void ab initio to that extent,” the Court held.
Madras High Court Attaches ₹154.63 Crore SEPC Receivables, Appoints PwC To Audit Financial Position
Case Title : GPE(INDIA) Ltd and Ors v. Twarit Consultancy Services Private Ltd and Ors
Case Number : EP Nos.7 of 2024, 91&92 of 2023, 15&16 of 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 54
The Madras High Court recently ordered interim attachment of Rs. 154.63 crore from the trade receivables of SEPC Limited, formerly known as Shriram EPC Limited, and appointed an independent auditor to examine its financial position, observing that it “cannot sit like a lame duck” while awaiting submissions from banks claiming charge over the company's assets.
Justice N. Anand Venkatesh passed the order in execution petitions filed by GPE (India) Ltd. seeking enforcement of a foreign arbitral award dated January 7, 2021, passed by the Singapore International Arbitration Centre.
“In the absence of any other security available and considering the huge amount that is due and payable to the award holder, this order of interim attachment is warranted,” the judge held.
Arbitrator Appointed By Agreed Institution Not Per Se Unilateral: Madras High Court
Case Title : Thomas Varghese v. M/s Sundaram Finance Limited & Anr
Case Number : Arb.OP (Com.Div.) No.598 of 2023
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 57
Drawing a clear distinction between unilateral appointments and institutional nominations, the Madras High Court has held that an arbitrator appointed by an arbitral institution agreed upon by the parties cannot automatically be treated as a unilateral appointee, even if one side initiates the process.
“The appointment of Arbitral Tribunal by an institution that is agreed upon between the parties per se cannot be dealt with in the same manner in which the Court deals with an unilateral appointment of an Arbitrator,” Justice N. Anand Venkatesh observed while upholding an arbitral award in favour of Sundaram Finance Limited.
At the same time, the court cautioned that financial institutions cannot bypass settled law by creating so-called arbitral bodies as a ruse. Referring to developments after the Supreme Court's rulings on unilateral appointments, the judge noted that some entities have formed associations and described them as arbitral institutions in order to “get over the judgment of the Apex Court.” Courts, he said, must test the credibility and integrity of such institutions whenever objections are raised.
Works Contract Payment Dispute Can Proceed In MSME Arbitration: Madras High Court
Case Title : Chennai Petroleum Corporation Limited v. Micro and Small Enterprises
Case Number : CRP No. 3446 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 60
The Madras High Court has refused to interfere with an order of the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council rejecting a Section 16 jurisdictional objection, holding that a payment claim arising from services under a civil works contract falls within the scope of the MSMED Act and can be adjudicated in arbitration before the Council.
Justice S. Sounthar observed that while courts ordinarily do not intervene when an Arbitral Tribunal rejects a jurisdictional objection, this case required scrutiny as Chennai Petroleum Corporation Limited had questioned the very applicability of the MSME law itself. The Court noted:
“In normal course, this Court would not have entertained the Civil Revision Petition and relegated the parties to workout the remedy under Section 34 of Arbitration Act, in view of Section 16(6) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The very applicability of MSMED Act for the claim made by the second respondent is questioned… and the same is going to the root of the matter.”
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.”
Case Title : ADRPlexus Medical Services Pvt Ltd v Dr Vivekandan K S
Case Number : Arb Appeal No 29 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 88
The Madras High Court has dismissed an appeal challenging an arbitrator's refusal to send an iPad marked as evidence for expert analysis, holding that the appeal filed by ADRPlexus Medical Services Pvt Ltd was not maintainable under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, particularly where the request was made after completion of the claimant's evidence. A Division Bench of Justice P. Velmurugan and Justice K. Govindarajan Thilakavadi held that ADRPlexus Medical Services Pvt Ltd had failed to justify the need for expert examination and had moved the application only after the chief-examination of its witness before the arbitral tribunal. “During the adjudication proceedings, after completion of chief examination of the appellant's witness/CW1, the appellant thought it fit to file the instant application as an after-thought, when the appellant did not choose to log in the iPad or call upon the respondent to furnish the login details earlier. In spite of sufficient opportunities granted to the appellant to exhibit the contents of the iPad, for the reasons best known to the appellant, the appellant has not utilised the same, and therefore, the sole Arbitrator has rightly dismissed the application,” the Court observed.
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.
Interim Relief Under Arbitration Act Cannot Supplant Execution Proceedings: Madras High Court
Case Title : C.J.Charles Rajkumar Versus Mrs.Rahamathunnisa (died) W/O A.Isfahai
Case Number : O.A.No.1188 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 63
The Madras High Court recently observed that a petition seeking interim relief under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act cannot be used as a substitute for execution proceedings under the Civil Procedure Code.
“An application under Section 9 can supplement but cannot supplant the process of execution contemplated through Order XXI of the Code,” Justice N. Anand Venkatesh said.
The court explained that although a Section 9 petition may remain maintainable until an arbitral award is fully satisfied, that does not mean the court must entertain such a petition in every case. The power to grant interim measures under the provision is discretionary, particularly where execution proceedings concerning the same award are already pending before the executing court.
Case Title : Lss Ocean Transport Dmcc Versus K.I. (International) Limited
Case Number : O.S.A (CAD) No. 15 of 2024 and CMP No.3586 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 67
The Madras High Court has allowed enforcement of a foreign arbitral award against a group company after noting that it had voluntarily issued a cheque as security for the disputed demurrage claim arising from a shipping contract.
A division bench of Justice C.V. Karthikeyan and Justice K. Kumaresh Babu observed that by issuing the cheque as security for the award amount, the company had effectively undertaken to satisfy the award if the charterer failed to do so. It therefore could not avoid liability by claiming that it was not a signatory to the arbitration agreement.
“They had knowledge that they would be made a party in an application seeking enforcement of the award. Having issued the cheque with such knowledge, they cannot now put forth a plea that, since they were not parties to the agreement or party to the arbitral proceedings, they cannot be made liable jointly and severally with the 1st respondent for the award passed by the arbitral tribunal. If permitted this would indirectly indicate encouragement of an act of deception and underlying fraud", it observed.
Case Title : The Project Director / Member Secretary, Tamil Nadu State AIDS Control Society v. The State Human Rights Commission, Tamil Nadu & Dr. Lucas Babu
Case Number : W.P. No. 21462 of 2021
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 74
The Madras High Court has recently set aside a recommendation of the Tamil Nadu State Human Rights Commission directing payment of ₹1 lakh compensation in a dispute arising out of a funding agreement between the Tamil Nadu State AIDS Control Society (TANSACS) and an NGO, holding that the matter was governed by a contractual dispute-resolution clause providing for grievance redressal and arbitration.
The order was passed by a Division Bench of Justice Dr. G. Jayachandran and Justice Shamim Ahmed in a writ petition filed by TANSACS challenging the Commission's order dated 4 May 2021.
“We find that the State Human Rights Commission ought not to have entertained the complaint in view of the terms of the agreement as the facts purely centers around the enforcement of the contractual obligations between the parties. Despite the clear terms of the agreement, the State Human Rights Commission exceeded its powers by conducting enquiry and had issued recommendations extracted above, which is totally beyond the jurisdiction of State Human Rights Commission. Hence, the said recommendations are liable to be quashed.”
Case Title : J. Nithyanandham v. M.V.S. Gramany and Sons & Ors.
Case Number : A No. 4679 of 2025 in C.S. (Comm. Div.) No. 154 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 75
The Madras High Court has refused to refer a trademark infringement and passing-off dispute over the snuff brand “J.S. Madras Snuff” to arbitration, holding that the arbitration clause in a partnership deed covering disputes between partners cannot bind a non-signatory merely because the alleged infringer is the partner's son.
Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy examined Clause 13 of the partnership deed and observed,
“The language of such clause makes it clear that it pertains to disputes or differences arising between the parties to the partnership deed. It is implicit that it should be a dispute pertaining to a matter dealt with at least broadly in the partnership deed. The partnership deed does not discuss the intellectual property of the partnership firm in general and clearly does not refer specifically to the marks forming the subject of this suit.”
Madras High Court Sets Aside Rental Loss In Arbitral Award Against VLCC In Lease Dispute
Case Title VLCC Health Care Limited v. Veeram Raja and Ors
Case Number CMA No. 367 of 2023 in CMP No. 3102 of 2023
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 112
The Madras High Court has partly allowed an appeal filed by VLCC Health Care Limited, setting aside the rental loss component of an arbitral award while upholding damages and arrears of rent against the company.
The court held that once possession of the premises had been handed over, a claim for rental loss for the subsequent period was unsustainable.
A Division Bench of Justices P. Velmurugan and K. Govindarajan Thilakavadi was dealing with an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, challenging an order of the Principal District Judge, Coimbatore, which had confirmed an arbitral award dated February 21, 2015.
Case Title : Sri Swarna and Co. v Chief Engineer (Construction), Southern Railways
Case Number : O.S.A.Nos.108, 109, 110 and 111 of 2020
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 108
The Madras High Court recently upheld the partial setting aside of arbitral awards in a railway contracts dispute, holding that claims granted by an arbitral tribunal contrary to express contractual prohibitions under the General Conditions of Contract (GCC) are unsustainable. The court also observed that, in the facts of the case, the contractor's issuance of a “No Claim Certificate” and the agreed GCC clauses barred it from raising further claims against the Railways.
A Division Bench of Justices P. Velmurugan and K. Govindarajan Thilakavadi dismissed appeals filed by Sri Swarna and Co. (SSC), affirming a December 10, 2019 order of a Single Judge, which had partly set aside four arbitral awards arising out of disputes relating to railway track doubling works.
Madras High Court Dismisses Appeal Against Execution Order After Arbitral Award Attains Finality
Case Title : Jumbo World Holdings Ltd. & Anr. v. Embassy Property Development Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : OSA (CAD) No. 6 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 97
After Jumbo World Holdings Ltd. and Dandavati Investments and Trading Company Pvt. Ltd. failed in their challenge to an arbitral award up to the Supreme Court, the Madras High Court has refused to entertain their appeal against an execution order passed in proceedings to give effect to the award, holding that such orders are not appealable under the statutory framework.
“In the instant case, the order appealed is against the directions given in an Execution Petition. The Award had been challenged under Section 34 of the Act and the challenge had failed. It was further challenged under Section 37 of the Act and that challenge had also failed. The further appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court had also failed. The appellants will have to abide by the Rule of Law at some point of time. No special leverage could be granted to them to evade the Award granted by the Arbitral Tribunal, confirmed by the learned Single Judge, by the Division Bench and by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Award has become final. The directions given by the learned Single Judge are not appealable in nature as they cannot be termed as a decree of the Court. They are not orders which fall under Order XLIII of the Code of Civil Procedure. ”, the bench observed.
Case Title : Unicon Engineers v. M/s Super Steam Boiler Engineers Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : OSA (CAD) No. 142 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 93
Reiterating that the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is a self-contained code, the Madras High Court has dismissed a Letters Patent appeal against a Single Judge's order directing a 75% pre-deposit in a challenge to an MSME arbitral award. A Division Bench of Justices C.V. Karthikeyan and K. Kumaresh Babu held, “The order of the learned Single Judge does not fall under the ambit of Order XLIII of the Code of Civil Procedure and therefore, this appeal filed under the Letters Patent would not lie.”
Emphasising the restrictive nature of appellate remedies, the Court observed that where a special statute provides a self-contained framework, “the applicability of the general law procedure would be impliedly excluded.”
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.”
Madras High Court Says No Cheque Bounce Prosecution If Underlying Arbitral Award Was Challenged
Case Title : S. Ramamoorthy v. M/s. T. Jayaraman
Case Number : Crl.O.P.No.3562 of 2023
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 130
The Madras High Court has recently quashed cheque bounce proceedings against a builder after finding that he had challenged the arbitral award cited as the basis of the alleged liability before the cheque was allegedly issued.
Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan said, “Even before the date of issuance of the cheque i.e. 15.07.2019, the accused challenged the very arbitration award before this Court as early as on 11.02.2019 in Arb.OP.Nos.381 and 382 of 2019. Therefore, the accused would not have issued the cheque dated 15.07.2019 to discharge his partial liability towards the award passed against him. Subsequently, the very award itself was set aside by this Court by order dated 29.04.2024 in Arb.OP.Nos.381 and 382 of 2019. In overall circumstances, the entire initiation of proceedings under Section 138 of NI Act is nothing but clear abuse of process of law and it cannot be sustained.”
Private Arbitration Cannot Override Statutory Labour Adjudication: Madras High Court
Case Title : Veejay Lakshmi Engineering Works Limited v. GTN Enterprises Limited
Case Number : CMA No. 232 of 2024
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 129
The Madras High Court has recently held that statutory labour adjudication cannot be displaced by private contractual arbitration where statutory worker rights are involved.
A Division Bench of Justice P Velmurugan and Justice K Govindarajan Thilakavadi observed, “While the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 governs voluntary arbitration, the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is a specialized social legislation designed to protect workers, and its mandatory procedures cannot be over ridden by private agreements.”
The bench further observed, “Moreover, the industrial disputes act, 1947 is a beneficial legislation that takes precedents when contractual arbitration is used to override statutory rights. In other words, a decision from a labour Court or Industrial Tribunal is mandatory and takes precedents, as it operates under statutory authority to maintain industrial peace, which is superior to private contract disputes.”
Case Title : K.Punniyamoorthy & Anr. v. M/s Escape Artists Motion Pictures & Ors.
Case Number: OA No. 283 of 2023
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 125
The Madras High Court recently permitted the release of Dhruva Natchathiram, a Gautham Vasudev Menon directorial, subject to the condition that pre-release payments be made to creditors and that all revenues from the film be routed through a court-monitored bank account.
The film, which stars Chiyaan Vikram in the lead role, has been delayed by nearly eight years since it was first slated for release.
The injunction had originally been obtained in 2023 by two parties to the production agreement, K. Punniyamoorthy and K. Premkumar, who invoked an arbitration clause in their agreement with Escape Artists Motion Pictures and sought pre-reference interim relief to restrain the film's release. Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy recorded that “At the suggestion of the Court, the applicants agreed to the release of the movie subject to certain terms and conditions. Likewise, the respondents also agreed subject to the discharge of payment obligations before and after the release of the movie.”
Case Title : The Federation of Motor Sports Clubs of India v. Blue Band Sports Private Limited & Anr.
Case Number: CRP No. 2287 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 126
The Madras High Court has refused to strike off a civil suit over disputes relating to a motorsports event, including the 49th South India Rally, holding that the existence of an arbitration clause does not by itself bar the jurisdiction of a civil court.
“Further, the existence of an arbitration clause does not ipso facto bar the jurisdiction of the Civil Court unless the procedure contemplated under the Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is duly invoked before the competent Court. Such issues are to be raised and decided before the trial Court and cannot be a ground to invoke Article 227 at the threshold to strike off the plaint”, a single-judge bench of Justice T.V. Thamilselvi held.
Only High Courts Can Entertain Section 34 Challenges In International Arbitration: Madras High Court
Case Title: Waterbury Farrel v. Steel Authority of India Limited & Anr.
Case Number : C.R.P. No. 1138 of 2023
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 123
The Madras High Court on 21 April, held that Section 34 challenges arising from international commercial arbitration must be filed before the High Court and not District Courts, in view of Section 2(1)(e) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 as amended in 2015.
Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy upheld the order of the Principal District Judge, Salem returning the Section 34 petition filed by Waterbury Farrel against Steel Authority of India Limited (SAIL) and Shriram EPC Limited for lack of jurisdiction, while setting aside the direction to re-present it before the New Delhi Court and permitting filing before the Madras High Court within 30 days. He held:
“As regards international commercial arbitration, only the High Court having jurisdiction to decide the questions forming the subject matter of the arbitration if the same had been the subject matter of the suit or the High Court having jurisdiction to hear appeals from decrees of courts subordinate to the High Court qualifies as Court for the purposes of the A & C Act. By virtue of this amendment, the Principal District Judge, Salem, no longer has jurisdiction in relation to an international commercial arbitration, such as in this case.”
Case Title : Ennore Tank Terminals Private Limited v. Kamarajar Port Limited
Case Number: OSA Nos. 263 & 265 of 2019
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 127
The Madras High Court has recently held that when a Master passes an order in execution of an arbitral award arising out of a commercial dispute, the order is equivalent to one passed by the Commercial Division of the High Court itself and cannot be challenged again before the Commercial Division.
"When a Master passes an order in an Execution Petition filed under Section 36 of the Arbitration Act, the said order is equivalent to the order of the Commercial Division of the High Court and there cannot be an appeal filed again before the Commercial Division. To reiterate the Master acts as a delegate of the Court when he discharges judicial act under the Original Side Rules and not when he discharges judicial act under the Commercial Courts Act or on a Commercial dispute adjudicated under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. This view has been strengthened by the subsequent amendment to the procedure when Execution Petitions on a commercial dispute are brought directly before the Commercial Division and not before the Master.,” the Court held.
Case Title: Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. SPML Infra Limited & Ors.
Case Numbers: O.S.A. No. 135 of 2020 & C.M.P. No. 6403 of 2020
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 141
The Madras High Court has held that a majority arbitral award does not become invalid merely because a dissenting arbitrator awarded lesser amounts.
The court dismissed a challenge by the Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board to an award in favour of SPML Infra Limited arising out of a Chennai sewerage pipeline project.
A division bench of Justices P. Velmurugan and K. Govindarajan Thilakavadi observed:
"The Tribunal consisted of three Arbitrators and the impugned Award is a majority Award. Section 29 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 expressly recognises decision-making by majority. Therefore, the mere fact that one Arbitrator rendered a minority opinion granting lesser amounts does not render the majority Award invalid."
Madras High Court Affirms Fresh Arbitration In ₹2.5 Cr. Isha Foundation-BSNL Call Billing Dispute
Case Title: The Administrator, Isha Foundation v BSNL
Case Number : OSA(CAD) No. 148 of 2022
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 142
The Madras High Court on 9 June dismissed Isha Foundation's appeal, upheld a Single Judge's order setting aside the arbitral award, and directed a fresh adjudication of its dispute with Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL).
A Division Bench of Justices P. Velmurugan and Govindarajan Thilakavadi held that an Arbitral Tribunal cannot reject Call Detail Records (CDRs) and decide a dispute involving abnormal call traffic without obtaining expert opinion where technical issues require investigation and analysis. The Bench held:
“... While so, the cause for abnormal call volume was necessarily to be investigated and analysed and it is not possible without an expert opinion. But, the Arbitral Tribunal proceeded to record its findings and held that it is too hard to suggest that all the disputed calls originated from ISHA's GSM PRI. The learned Arbitrator ought to have sought for expert opinion before arriving at such conclusion.”
Case Title: K. Prem Kumar v. Escape Artists Motion Pictures & Ors. and K. Punniyamoorthy v. Escape Artists Motion Pictures & Ors.
Case Number : OSA(CAD) Nos. 62 & 63 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 148
The Madras High Court has recently upheld an order permitting the release of filmmaker Gautham Vasudev Menon's long-delayed Tamil spy thriller 'Dhruva Natchathiram'.
The court held that a judicially supervised mechanism governing the film's revenues strikes a workable balance between enabling its release and protecting competing claims over its proceeds.
A Division Bench of Justices P. Velmurugan and K. Govindarajan Thilakavadi dismissed appeals filed by film financiers K. Prem Kumar and K. Punniyamoorthy.
The appeals challenged an April 30 order of a single judge that allowed the release of the Vikram- starrer movie subject to safeguards. Those safeguards included routing all receipts and disbursements through a dedicated bank account overseen by court-appointed observers.
"Having regard to the nature of the arrangement made by the learned Single Judge, we are of the considered view that the impugned order ensures a workable balance between facilitating the release of the film and ensuring that the receipt and utilisation of its revenues remain subject to judicial supervision," the bench observed.
"We do not find the exercise of discretion by the learned Single Judge to be arbitrary, perverse, or suffering from any patent illegality warranting interference in appellate jurisdiction," it added.
High Court Cannot Review Section 11 Arbitrator Appointment After Becoming Functus Officio: Madras HC
Case Title: M/s Maavadi Soft Tech Ventures (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. M/s Anir Tech Park Private Limited
Case Number: Rev.APLO Nos. 14 to 16 of 2026 in Arb.O.P. (Com. Div.) Nos. 75 to 77 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 145
The Madras High Court on 8 June held that once it appoints an arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, it becomes functus officio and cannot later review or invalidate that appointment because the Act does not confer such power.
Justice Abdul Quddhose dismissed review applications filed by Maavadi Soft Tech Ventures (India) Pvt. Ltd., True Value Homes India Private Limited and N. Ravichandran against Anir Tech Park Private Limited, refusing to revisit the Court's 22 April 2025 order appointing former Orissa High Court Chief Justice Dr. Justice S. Muralidhar as the sole arbitrator. He observed:
"The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has not granted the High Court the power to review its order passed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act appointing an Arbitrator. The High Court appointing the Arbitrator under Section 11 of the Act also becomes 'Functus officio' on the appointment of the arbitrator and the said appointment cannot be invalidated by the same Court which passed the order."
Case Title Clasic Farms (Chennai) Limited v. N. Venkatasubbu & Another
Case Number LPA No. 1 of 2022
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 150
The Madras High Court has dismissed an appeal against the closure of a contempt petition alleging that a property was sold in violation of an interim injunction obtained under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
A division bench of Justices Anita Sumanth and Sunder Mohan noted that while arbitral proceedings had continued until 2018, the appellant had taken no steps thereafter to revive them. In those circumstances, the Bench found no reason to interfere with the order closing the contempt petition.
"Having not chosen to pursue the arbitration, and literally abandoning the same, we are of the considered view that nothing would be gained by his continuing interest in the contempt petition alone. The effect of any order passed in the contempt petition would only be to punish the contemnors," the bench observed.
Case Title : National Highways Authority of India v. District Collector, Tiruppur & Ors. (Batch Matters)
Case Number : Arb. Appeal Nos. 18 of 2026 and connected matters
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 152
The Madras High Court has recently set aside a Tiruppur district court's direction granting landowners an additional 12% compensation in a batch of land acquisition disputes arising from the six-laning of the Chengapalli-Walayar stretch of National Highway-47.
A Division Bench of Justices P. Velmurugan and K. Govindarajan Thilakavadi held that landowners are entitled to solatium and interest in acquisitions under the National Highways Act. However, they cannot claim the additional 12% amount under Section 23(1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
The bench noted that the Supreme Court in National Highways Authority of India v. Tehal Singh had clarified that Section 23(1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act does not apply to acquisitions under the National Highways Act.
"The Hon'ble Apex Court clarifications affirmed that Section 23(1-A) (the Additional 12% amount for the period from the notification to the Award) does not apply to acquisitions undertaken under the National Highways Act. Therefore, 12% additional compensation awarded under Section 23(1-A) granted by the learned District Judge under NHAI proceedings is unsustainable," the court observed.
Arbitration Plea Must Be Filed Before Leave-to-Defend Application In Summary Suit: Madras High Court
Case Title : ETA General Private Limited v. Fujitsu General (Thailand) Company Limited
Case Number : O.S.A. (CAD) No. 1 of 2024 and C.M.P. Nos. 167, 168 & 10897 of 2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 143
The Madras High Court has recently held that a defendant in a summary suit cannot seek reference of the dispute to arbitration after first filing an application for leave to defend, ruling that such an application constitutes the first statement on the substance of the dispute.
A Division Bench of Justices P. Velmurugan and K. Govindarajan Thilakavadi rendered the ruling while dismissing an appeal filed by ETA General Private Limited against an order refusing to refer a USD 19 million recovery dispute with Fujitsu General (Thailand) Company Limited to arbitration.
The bench observed, “Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act clearly says that before submitting the first statement, the party has to invoke Section 8 and file the application for referring the matter to arbitration. As stated already, Order XXXVII of the Code is a procedural law and only general in nature. Whereas Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is a special law which prevails over the general law and therefore, it cannot be stated that in the suit filed under Order XXXVII, the defendant has to first file the application for leave to defend and thereafter can file the application under Section 8. Therefore, we are of the view that the application filed for leave to defend in summary suit itself is the first statement.”
Madras High Court Restores Arbitral Award, Says District Judge Erred In Calling It 'Hypothetical'
Case Title : G. Selvam v. Union of India represented by the Executive Engineer, Madurai Central Division, Central PWD, Madurai
Case Number : Arb. Appeal (MAD) No.58 of 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 161
The Madras High Court at Madurai has recently set aside an order of the Madurai Principal District Judge insofar as it annulled an arbitral award granting ₹14.04 lakh as an early completion bonus to a contractor in a dispute with the Union of India over the construction of a Kendriya Vidyalaya school building at Sivagangai.
The bench of Justice V. Lakshminarayanan held that the Principal District Judge's characterisation of the arbitral award as "hypothetical" reflected non-application of mind.
Restoring the award, the court observed that the arbitrator had taken a plausible view, based on documentary evidence, that had the Union of India supplied cement, steel, structural drawings, and the colour scheme in time, the contractor would have completed the work 92 days in advance and earned the contractual bonus.
The bench observed, "It was not a hypothetical conclusion as concluded by the learned Principal District Judge. In order to arrive at the conclusion, he referred to page no.4 of CSF as well as Ex.C6. Hence, the conclusion arrived at by the learned Principal District Judge that it is a hypothetical conclusion and therefore, requires interference, shows non-application of mind by the learned Principal District Judge."
Madras High Court Stays Release Of Dileep-Starrer 'Neekkam' Over Financial Dispute
Case Title : A.V. Anoop v. Sandeep Chandrasenan Nair & Ors.
Case Number : O.A.No.605 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 153
The Madras High Court has restrained the release, distribution, and exhibition of the Malayalam film 'Neekkam', starring Dileep and directed by Jagan Shaji Kailas.
The temporary order came on a plea filed by A.V. Anoop, proprietor of AVA Productions, who claimed a contractual charge over the film after alleging that its producer had failed to repay advances extended under earlier production agreements.
Justice K. Kumaresh Babu granted ad-interim protection to AVA Productions. The court also issued notice to the respondents and made it returnable in four weeks.
Madras High Court Allows Telecom Contractor To Bid In Fresh BSNL Tender Pending Arbitration
Case Title : Universal Tele Services v. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited
Case Number: Arb.O.P.(Com.Div.) No.349 of 2026 and O.A. Nos.445 & 446 of 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 158
The Madras High Court has granted interim relief to Universal Tele Services by allowing it to submit a bid in a fresh Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) tender for telecom operations.
The dispute over the termination of its contracts will meanwhile be decided through arbitration. The court directed that BSNL should process the bid only after the arbitrator passes orders.
Justice K. Kumaresh Babu passed the order. The court also clarified an earlier order appointing former High Court judge Justice V. Bharathidasan as sole arbitrator. It made clear that he would adjudicate disputes arising under two agreements covering BSNL's North and Central operational areas. The arbitrator was also given the discretion to deal with both disputes jointly or simultaneously.
The court observed, "This Court is of the view that the applicant could be permitted to submit the tender and the same shall be processed only after orders are passed by the learned Arbitrator."
Manipur High Court
Case Title : MWC Market Services Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Manipur & Ors.
Case Number : Arbitration Appeal No. 1 of 2022 with MC(ARB.A.) No. 1 of 2022
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (MAN) 2
The Manipur High Court on 30 May held that compensation under a liquidated damages clause cannot be awarded without evidence of actual loss where such loss is capable of proof, and partly set aside an arbitral award arising from a dispute over delayed commencement of online lottery draws.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice M. Sundar and Justice A. Bimol Singh partly allowed MWC Market Services Pvt. Ltd.'s appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, setting aside the award of Rs. 10 crore in damages in favour of the State of Manipur while upholding the award of Rs. 19.48 lakh towards additional infrastructure costs. The judges held:
“The award of liquidated damages to the tune of ₹10 crores qua a claim of ₹35 crores without any evidence much less proof by adopting not even a rough and ready approximation approach but fixing it at ₹10 crores without any basis is clearly a patent illegality which goes to the root of the matter.”
Uttarakhand High Court
Case Title : Saravan Singh and Others v. Competent Authority Special Land Acquisition and Another (and connected matters)
Case Number : Writ Petition (MS) No. 534 of 2025 and connected petitions
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(UTT) 5
The Uttarakhand High Court has dismissed a batch of petitions filed by landowners challenging an arbitrator's rejection of their delayed claims for enhanced compensation under the National Highways Act, holding that such challenges cannot be entertained in writ jurisdiction when a statutory remedy is available under the arbitration law.
It noted that a remedy is available under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act to challenge such orders.
A single bench of Justice Rakesh Thapliyal noted that the question whether limitation law applies to such arbitrations is still pending before the Supreme Court, but said this does not justify bypassing the statutory route.
“As pointed out the issue whether Limitation Act would apply or not is still subjudice before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and admittedly, the petitioners have a statutory remedy as provided under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, therefore, taking into consideration the preliminary objection of National Highway Authority, this Court is of the view of that all these writ petitions are not maintainable against the order of Arbitrator / Collector, Udham Singh Nagar.,” the court said.
Case Title : The Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. M/s Vigyan Chemical Industries
Case Number : Appeal From Order No. 600 of 2012
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(UTT) 10
The Uttarakhand High Court has recently upheld an arbitral award directing Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. to pay ₹34,000 to Vigyan Chemical Industries in an insurance claim dispute.
The court rejected the insurer's contention that acceptance of a lower amount against the claim prevented the insured from seeking the balance through arbitration.
Justice Ravindra Maithani heard the appeal filed by Oriental Insurance against a District Judge's order refusing to set aside the award.
Observing that acceptance of a part payment did not bar the insured from pursuing the remaining claim, the court held,
"What is argued by the respondent is that the receipt was provided by the appellant and the respondent was made to sign on a doted lines. This fact is not disputed by learned counsel for the appellant. It is not disputed that the appellant had made claim for Rs.1,79,000/-. When he was not given the entire claimed amount, he referred to the matter to the Arbitrator. It cannot be said that under such facts and circumstances the respondent was precluded or estopped from referring the matter to the Arbitrator. The Arbitrator has decided the matter in accordance with law."
Telangana High Court
Case Title : Sagar Asia Private Limited v. Mr. V. Agastya Sagar & Ors
Case Number : Writ Petition No. 37432 of 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (TEL) 6
The Telangana High Court has recently held that its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution cannot be invoked to challenge an arbitral tribunal's rejection of a jurisdictional objection when the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 provides a specific post-award remedy.
Dismissing a writ petition filed by Sagar Asia Private Limited, a Division Bench of Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice Gadi Praveen Kumar held that the petitioner must await the arbitral award and pursue remedies under Sections 34 and 37 of the Act.
“The petitioner's choice of forum is entirely misplaced as a clear statutory remedy is available under section 16(6) of the Act. That stage has not yet been reached. There is no conceivable reason as to why the Writ Court would impede the momentum of the arbitral proceedings midway,” the court observed.
Examining the statutory framework under Sections 16, 34 and 37 of the Act, the High Court held that once a plea under Section 16 is rejected, the arbitral tribunal is required to continue the proceedings and render its award. Only thereafter can the aggrieved party challenge the award under Section 34. If that challenge fails, an appeal lies under Section 37(1)(c).
Case Title : OWH SE i.L. v United Company RUSAL International PJSC & Ors.
Case Number : Execution Petition (Arbitration) No. 2 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (TEL) 7
The Telangana High Court has recently restrained AL Plus Holding LLC, a subsidiary of award-debtor United Company RUSAL International PJSC, from transferring its 26% shareholding in Pioneer Aluminium Industries Limited while hearing enforcement proceedings of foreign arbitral awards worth about Rs 2,840 crore obtained by OWH SE i.L.
A single bench of Justice T. Madhavi Devi directed that “this Court is inclined to direct the respondent No.2 not to transfer its shares in Pioneer Aluminum Industries Limited to the extent of 26% of total shares of the said company as stated by the petitioner in his affidavit till the next date of hearing.”
It observed that the direction was required “in order to see that the award is not defeated by any attempts to divert the funds by the arbitral award debtor.”
Case Title: Ramky Elsmex Hyderabad Ring Road Limited v. Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority & Ors.
Case Number: Commercial Court Appeal No. 35 of 2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(TEL) 19
The Telangana High Court has set aside a Commercial Court order that annulled a Rs. 168.36 crore arbitral award against the Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority and others in a contract dispute with Ramky Elsmex Hyderabad Ring Road Limited.
The court held that the consensual appointment of a presiding arbitrator is not rendered invalid only because an application for such appointment was pending before the court.
Rejecting the Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority's contention that the arbitral tribunal was improperly constituted on this ground, the court held: “We are of the considered view that the respondents' argument runs contrary to the leitmotif of the A&C Act which roots for party autonomy. The essence of the respondents' argument is that the Court can force its choice of presiding arbitrator on the party overriding a consensus arrived between the parties or the arbitrators, once an application under section 11(6) is filed in Court. Such a construction is anathema to the A&C Act which gives primacy to the intention of parties at every stage of the arbitration process. There is nothing on record to suggest that the nominee arbitrators were at variance with regard to the appointment/selection of the presiding arbitrator"
75% Pre-Deposit Under MSMED Act Mandatory For Challenging Arbitral Award: Telangana High Court
Case Title : M/s Kendriya Bhandar v. Atlantis Agritech Private Limited and Ors
Case Number : Civil Revision Petition No. 503 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(TEL) 17
The Telangana High Court on 15 April 2026 held that a buyer cannot circumvent the mandatory 75% pre-deposit requirement under Section 19 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (MSME Act) to challenge an arbitral award. A Division Bench of Justices Moushumi Bhattacharya and Gadi Praveen Kumar dismissed a Civil Revision Petition filed by Kendriya Bhandar, which sought exemption from depositing 75% of the awarded amount while challenging an award passed by the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council. It held:
“Section 19 makes it clear that the deposit requirement of 75% must be paid by all other entities, except the Supplier, for any application for setting aside any Award by the Facilitation Council. Section 19 further contains an express bar on the Court from entertaining any application challenging the Award/Decree passed by the Council unless the applicant deposits 75% of the awarded amount/Decree.”
Case Title : M/s Galore Infotech Pvt. Ltd v. M/s SEW Krishnagar Bahrampore Highways Ltd
Case Number : Arbitration Application No. 161 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(TEL) 11
The Telangana High Court has recently held that Section 14 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (provision for termination of an arbitrator's mandate) is a narrow provision and cannot be used to indirectly challenge the validity of an arbitrator's appointment once that issue has attained finality. Justice K. Lakshman dismissed an application filed by Galore Infratech Pvt. Ltd. under Sections 14, 15 and 11 of the Act. The company had sought termination of the arbitrator's mandate and appointment of an independent arbitrator in its dispute with SEW Krishnagar Bahrampore Highways Ltd.
Refusing the plea, the court observed, “Section 14 of the Act provides for termination of the mandate of an arbitrator where he becomes de jure or de facto unable to perform his functions or fails to act without undue delay. The scope of the provision is narrow and is confined to situations where the arbitrator suffers from a legal or factual incapacity which renders continuation of the mandate impossible. The provision cannot be invoked as a substitute for challenging the validity of the appointment itself”
Case Title : Union of India v. Krishnapatnam Railway Company Limited and Anr
Case Number : Commercial Court Appeal No. 7 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(TEL) 14
The Telangana High Court has recently held that the Railways' SCR treasury account is not immune from attachment in execution proceedings in their entirety and that only specifically identifiable exempt amounts can be protected. Clarifying that exemptions under Section 60 of the Civil Procedure Code apply only to identifiable portions of funds and not entire accounts, the Court said, “It is also pertinent to note that the proviso to section 60(1) of the CPC carve-out exceptions from attachment in respect of 'the following particulars' which indicates that only certain specified amounts are immune from attachment, as opposed to the entire account itself. The appellant, however, seeks to take advantage of the proviso to section 60(1) of the C.P.C. in respect of the entirety of the Treasury Account", the court observed.
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.”
Telangana High Court Dismisses MSME's Plea Against Arbitration Reference After Consent To Tribunal
Case Title SRP: MINERALS PVT LTD vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS
Case Number: WRIT PETITION No.11193 OF 2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (TEL) 31
The Telangana High Court has held that a company cannot challenge an MSME arbitration reference after consenting to the constitution of the arbitral tribunal and participating in the proceedings.
“After giving consent to the constitution of the Arbitral Tribunal and thereafter having participated in the proceedings before it, the writ petitioner cannot subsequently challenge the reference of the dispute to arbitration on the ground of the dispute not amenable to arbitration,” the Court observed.
A Division Bench of Justices Moushumi Bhattacharya and Gadi Praveen Kumar dismissed SRP Minerals' writ petition challenging the MSME Facilitation Council's decision to refer its dispute with Sai Teja Construction Ltd to arbitration before the International Arbitration and Mediation Centre, Hyderabad.
The Court also vacated interim protection granted to the company.
Holding that the petition was an after-thought and a last-ditch attempt to scuttle the arbitral proceedings, the Court said:
“Thus, we are of the considered view that the writ petitioner has filed this Writ Petition only as an after-thought and as a last ditch attempt to scuttle the arbitration between the parties.”
Case Title : M/s Ashok Kumar Rakesh Kumar v M/s Andhra Pradesh Foods, Hyderabad and Others
Case Number: C.M.A No. 715 of 2005
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (TEL) 33
The Telangana High Court on 4 May held that where a contract expressly provides for forfeiture of security and recovery of differential costs, the aggrieved party may invoke both remedies upon breach.
A Division Bench of Justices Moushumi Bhattacharya and Gadi Praveen Kumar dismissed the appeal filed by Ashok Rakesh Kumar and upheld an arbitral award in favour of the A.P. Nutrition Council (APNC), finding no patent illegality in the Tribunal granting both forms of relief. The judges held:
“The appellant contended that the procurement of sugar amounts to unilateral modification of the contract but the material on record clearly shows that the purchase of sugar was a temporary measure, necessitated by the failure of the appellant to supply jaggery powder and was essential to ensure uninterrupted implementation of a public welfare programme.”
Self-Created Urgency No Ground To Skip Pre-Institution Mediation: Telangana High Court
Case Title: Trident Chemphar Limited v. Minas De Benga & Another
Case Number: Civil Revision Petition No. 1511 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (TEL) 36
The Telangana High Court has held that a party cannot avoid the mandatory pre-institution mediation process in a commercial dispute by claiming urgency that is of its own making.
A Division Bench of Justices Nagesh Bheemapaka and Vakiti Ramakrishna Reddy dismissed a plea by Trident Chemphar Limited. The company had challenged an order returning its proposed suit against ongoing ICC arbitration proceedings for failure to first undergo pre-institution mediation.
“The urgency, if any, is thus of Petitioner's own making, arising from its decision to wait until the Majority Award was passed before approaching the civil court. Self-created urgency, as already noticed, does not satisfy the requirement of the proviso to Section 12A. To permit Petitioner to bypass the salutary mandate of Section 12A on the basis of such urgency would set a dangerous precedent and effectively, permit any party to an arbitration to avoid the requirement of pre-institution mediation by the simple expedient of waiting until an adverse procedural order is passed before rushing to court,” the Court observed.
Case Title: J. Srisailam Reddy & Another v. K. Srisailam & Others
Case Number: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 209 of 2013
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (TEL) 37
The Telangana High Court on 8 June 2026 held that an unproven resolution stated to have been passed by a trade association cannot be treated as an arbitral award and cannot operate as res judicata to bar statutory arbitration proceedings under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Justice Suddala Chalapathi Rao dismissed an appeal filed by J. Srisailam Reddy and another and upheld the arbitral award in favour of Vishnu Rice Mill, affirming the order of the District Court under Section 37 of the Act. He held:
“the petitioners have not proved that the proceedings have been drawn by following the procedure under the Act to hold that the resolution Ex.R8 to be arbitral award and thus, in the considered view of this Court, the said resolution is not amply proved to be genuine to hold or as an award much less it does not operate as res judicata so to disentitle the respondents from approaching this Court under Section 11(6) of the Act.”
Notice Issued In Name Of Non-Existing Entity Vitiates Entire Arbitral Process: Telangana High Court
Case Title : Rihim Developers Private Limited Vs Ramana Rao
Case Number: CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 643 OF 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (TEL) 38
The Telangana High Court has held that a statutory notice issued in the name of a non-existing entity is a nullity and vitiates the entire arbitral process.
The court made the observation while setting aside an arbitral tribunal's order passed in proceedings initiated on the basis of a Section 21 notice issued to a dissolved company.
A division bench of Justice K. Lakshman and Justice B.R. Madhusudhan Rao observed, “Any statutory notice issued in the name of a non-existing entity is a nullity and vitiates the entire process.”
Case Title : Cinepolis India Private Limited v. Sree Thirumala Infra Private Limited
Case Number : Arbitration Application No.108 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (TEL) 39
The Telangana High Court has appointed former Acting Chief Justice Justice P. Naveen Rao as an independent arbitrator to adjudicate disputes between Cinepolis India Private Limited and Sree Thirumala Infra Private Limited.
The order was passed by Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh after the parties agreed to the appointment. The court also took on record the statutory disclosure submitted by the proposed arbitrator.
Bombay High Court
Bombay High Court Upholds ₹10.54 Crore Arbitration Award Against CADA In Beed Irrigation Project
Case Title : The Chief Engineer and Chief Administrator, Command Area Development Authority & Ors. v. Hule Constructions Private Limited & Ors.
Case Number : Commercial Arbitration Appeal No. 2 of 2022 with Civil Application No. 10992 of 2022 in CARBA/2/2022
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 53
The Bombay High Court has recently upheld a Rs. 10.54 crore arbitral award arising from delays in the repair and renovation of 19 minor irrigation tanks in Beed district, holding the Command Area Development Authority responsible for stalling the project. A Division Bench of Justices Arun R. Pedneker and Vaishali Patil-Jadhav dismissed an appeal filed by senior officials of the authority and affirmed the Commercial Court's refusal to set aside the award.
The bench agreed with the arbitrator that the department could not rely on contractual clauses barring compensation after being found in breach of its own obligations. "Notwithstanding the clauses in the contract, when the party has failed to standby it's part of the contract, it is not available for the defaulting party to insist upon implementation of the clauses of the contract providing for no claim for idling of machinery or escalation of price. The argument raised is, thus, rejected.”, it said.
Individual Members Can't Stall Housing Society Redevelopment: Bombay High Court Reaffirms
Case Title : Real Infrastructure Company through its Partner Keshavji Damji Minat V/S Tilak Nagar Mahalaxmi Co-Operative Housing Society Limited and Ors.
Case Number : ARBITRATION PETITION (L) NO.40791 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 43
The Bombay High Court has held that an individual member of a cooperative housing society cannot refuse to vacate her flat and delay redevelopment after the society has approved the project and executed a development agreement. Justice Sandeep V. Marne reiterated members are bound by the development agreement signed by the society. "The individual members of the Co-operative Society are bound by covenants in the Development Agreement executed by the Society with the Developer and individual rights of a member are subservient to the obligations of the Society under the Development Agreement.", it said.
Case Title : Ningbo Aux Imp & Exp Co. Ltd. v. Amstrad Consumer India Pvt. Ltd. (formerly known as OVOT Pvt. Ltd.) & Anr.
Case Number : Commercial Arbitration Petition No. 983 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 50
The Bombay High Court has dismissed a petition filed by Ningbo Aux Imp & Exp Co. Ltd. seeking interim relief against Vijay Sales, holding that such relief cannot be granted once a foreign arbitral award has already been found unenforceable against that party. Justice Sandeep V. Marne noted that the foreign arbitral award in the case was passed only against Amstrad Consumer India Pvt. Ltd. Vijay Sales was not a party to the arbitration and had already been deleted from the award enforcement proceedings by an earlier court order that had attained finality.
“Once it is held in enforcement proceedings that there is no underlying liability against a third-party, Section 9 route cannot be adopted to fasten the very same liability against that party in an indirect manner. In the present case, it is held by the enforcement court that Vijay Sales has no liability to pay to the Petitioner under the award and enforcement proceedings are dismissed against it,” the court observed.
Case Title: State of Maharashtra v. M/s Patwardhan Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : Arbitration Appeal No. 33 of 2015
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 35
The Bombay High Court has set aside an arbitral award that granted toll loss compensation to a private concessionaire by treating pre-contract Minutes of Meeting as a binding part of the contract. Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan held that the arbitral tribunal had misread the contract, effectively converting a force majeure clause into a guaranteed revenue mechanism. The Court said this interpretation was an “impossible view,” “irrational,” and suffered from “manifest perversity,” and held that it violated the fundamental public policy of Indian law.
The court held that treating the meeting notes as a binding amendment effectively rewrote the contract and upset its basic risk-sharing structure. "What the Learned Arbitral Tribunal and the Section 34 Court have done is turn this on its head. They have simply taken the observations in the MOM to treat them as an amendment not just to the benchmark for compensating for a force majeure event but even for circumstances that do not even constitute a force majeure event," the court observed.
Case Title : Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. vs. Om Constraction on behalf of Om Constraction Nice Projects Limited JV
Case Number : Commercial Arbitration Petition (Lodg.) No. 28685 of 2024
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 36
The Bombay High Court has set aside a Rs 19.82 crore arbitral award against state-run Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., holding that the arbitral tribunal followed an “unusual process, unknown to law” and wrongly prevented the company from raising a defence that struck at the validity of the contract itself. Justice Sandeep V Marne said the arbitrator shut out HPCL from raising objections based on suppression and fraud after those facts came to light.
Justice Sandeep V Marne said the arbitrator shut out HPCL from raising objections based on suppression and fraud after those facts came to light. This, the court said, was against the most basic notions of justice. “It is clearly against the most basic notions of justice to disallow a party to raise the defence of validity of contract after it discovers the act of suppression,” the court observed, adding that the resulting award was “patently illegal.”
Bombay High Court Cautions Against Injunctions On Third Parties In Arbitration Cases
Case Title: Messse Frankfurt Trade Fairs India Pvt. Ltd. v. Netlink Solutions India Limited & Ors.
Case Number: COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION PETITION (L) NO. 40115 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 40
The Bombay High Court has dismissed a plea seeking interim relief pending arbitration by Messe Frankfurt Trade Fairs India Pvt. Ltd, the Indian arm of German exhibition organiser Messe Frankfurt, seeking interim relief to stop two trade exhibitions in Mumbai, reiterating that courts must be cautious while granting orders directly against third parties under the arbitration law.
Justice Sandeep V Marne said that while there is no absolute bar on granting interim relief against non-signatories, such power cannot be stretched in every case. "Though there may not be complete prohibition in law to make an order directly against a third party under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act, such power needs to be exercised sparingly. No case is made out by the Petitioner for exercise of such power against Respondent No. 6.", the court said. Crucially, the court noted that the exhibitions were being organised by a separate entity that was not a party to the arbitration agreement. Since the interim reliefs were sought directly against that third party and not as a consequence of restraining a contracting party, the court said such relief could not be granted on the facts of the case.
Interim Relief Can't Undo Completed Sale Or Replace Enforcement In Arbitration: Bombay High Court
Case Title : Telford Marine Dmcc v. Bhambhani Shipping Limited And Another
Case Number : COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 727 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 42
The Bombay High Court has dismissed a plea seeking to stop the sale of a vessel and secure an arbitral award, holding that once a sale is completed, the court cannot restrain the transaction or use interim relief to indirectly enforce an award. Justice Sandeep V. Marne said interim protection under the arbitration law is meant to prevent imminent dissipation of assets.
It cannot be used to undo a concluded transaction or as a substitute for enforcement proceedings. “The sale of the Ship has taken place. Whether it is a valid transfer within the meaning of Section 42 of the Merchants Shipping Act is not required to be adjudicated in the present petition,” the court said. “Section 9 remedy would ordinarily be available only when it is demonstrated that the award creditor is in the process of seeking enforcement of the award but there is imminent danger of dissipation of the assets,” It added.
Arbitration Cannot Be Invoked Beyond Contractually Agreed Monetary Limits: Bombay High Court
Case Title : M/S. Sowil Limited v. Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction) Bhusawal
Case Number : COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION APPLICATION NO. 688 OF 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 51
The Bombay High Court has held that where parties have contractually agreed to restrict arbitration only to disputes up to a specified percentage of the contract value, courts cannot compel arbitration for claims exceeding that agreed limit. Justice Sandeep V. Marne emphasised that arbitration is founded on party autonomy, under which parties are free to determine not only whether disputes will be arbitrated but also which categories or value of disputes will be subject to arbitration. Emphasising this principle, the Court observed, “Once arbitration agreement is arrived at, it does not mean that every dispute has to be resolved only by arbitration.
It is for parties to decide whether all or selective disputes are to be resolved by arbitration. Parties here have clearly intended that claims of only particular value would be adjudicated through arbitration while claims exceeding the agreed value would be resolved through other remedies. It is for the parties to agree as to whether the disputes would be resolved through arbitration or not and the Court cannot force the parties to have the disputes resolved through the mechanism of private arbitration.”
Bombay High Court Says Arbitrator Right To Decide Claim on Work Performed, Not Alleged Admission
Case Title : Kanti Builders Pvt. Ltd. v. Witty Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : Commercial Arbitration Petition (L) No. 33334 of 2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 49
The Bombay High Court has refused to interfere with an arbitral award after finding that the contractor itself chose to press a claim based on the value of work carried out, and could not later ask the court to enforce a higher amount on the basis of an alleged admission of liability. Dismissing a petition filed by Kanti Builders Pvt Ltd, the Court said the arbitral tribunal was justified in deciding the dispute on evidence of work executed rather than on letters or a dishonoured cheque relied upon later. Justice Sandeep V. Marne upheld the approach of the sole arbitrator, noting that the tribunal had undertaken a detailed factual exercise to assess what was actually payable under the construction contract.
The Court observed that “the Tribunal rightly not got swayed by alleged admissions contained in the letter dated 12 August 2021 and undated letter.” It said the arbitrator had examined the exact liability under the contract instead of mechanically accepting claimed figures.
'Karta' Personally Liable if HUF is Unable to Satisfy Arbitral Award: Bombay HC
Case Title: Manjeet Singh T. Anand v. Nishant Enterprises HUF & Anr.
Case Number: Interim Application No. 5306 of 2025 in Comm. Execution Application No. 19 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 31
The Bombay High Court declared that a 'Karta' has a personal and unlimited liability for satisfying unpaid arbitral dues of a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF), thereby enabling creditors to proceed against the Karta's private assets without a separate decree. In a major boost for award creditors, the Bench of Justice R.I Chagla held that the "seat court" retains the jurisdiction to execute an arbitral award and provide interim relief, even if the judgment debtor's assets are situated outside of its territorial jurisdiction.
The Court noted that the arbitral tribunal's refusal to pass a separate money award against the Karta did not bar execution against him, as questions of Hindu law liability “never and could never even arise for consideration before the Arbitral Tribunal.” Since the HUF admittedly carried on business, the Karta's personal assets were held reachable in execution.
Case Title: Sunfield Global Pte Limited v. Liberty Investments Private Limited
Case Number: Commercial Arbitration Petition (L) NO.34540 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 29
The Bombay High Court has refused to grant interim relief to a Singapore-based company, holding that once a foreign-seated arbitral tribunal is constituted, Indian courts should be slow in entertaining unless the party shows that the tribunal cannot provide an effective remedy. Justice Bharati Dangre clarified that this principle applies even to foreign-seated arbitrations.
While Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act (for interim relief) can be invoked in such cases, the bar under Section 9(3) (bar on relief after constitution of arbitral tribunal) still operates after the tribunal is in place. “Without taking recourse to the remedy available to move the Arbitral Tribunal, the Petitioner has approached this Court by invoking Section 9… in the wake of the embargo created under sub-section (3) as the Tribunal is already constituted and the better course available to a party is to approach the Tribunal, and in this case, I do not find that the Tribunal is lacking power to consider such a request,” the court said.
Case Title: Ramesh Venkateshwar Somani v. Rajesh Somani & Ors.
Case Number: Commercial Arbitration Petition NO. 210 OF 2023 along with Interim Application No. 379 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 28
In Commercial Arbitration Petition No. 210 OF 2023 The Bombay High Court upheld an arbitral award involving a long-standing family dispute over shares in a demerged company. Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan held the arbitral tribunal's decision—that a later sale to a bona fide purchaser takes precedence over an earlier conditional arrangement—to be a plausible and well-reasoned conclusion. “The finding that the 2012 Agreement was a much wider Agreement would not mean that the Learned Arbitral Tribunal exceeded its scope.
The Learned Arbitral Tribunal was fully entitled to compare the competing considerations that were clamouring for favourable consideration by the Learned Arbitral Tribunal, between the two instruments, in order to adjudicate the disputes between the parties.Likewise, the Learned Arbitral Tribunal's reference to and reliance on the sale of office premises does not result in the Learned Arbitral Tribunal having gone outside the scope of the reference to arbitration as set out in the Reference Order”, the court held.
Case Title: Lotus Logistics and Developers Pvt Ltd v. Evertop Apartments Co-operative Housing Society Ltd
Case Number: Commercial Arbitration Petition (L) No. 34791 of 2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 27
The Bombay High Court held that the principle barring specific performance of a terminated contract is not an absolute rule and is subject to an exception where subsequent conduct of parties indicates revival of contractual obligations, particularly in arbitration proceedings. Justice Sandeep V. Marne made the observation while hearing a petition filed by Lotus Logistics and Developers Pvt. Ltd, challenging an arbitral award passed in favour of Evertop Apartments Co-operative Housing Society Ltd.
It observed: “In my view therefore, the principle of impermissibility to seek specific performance of terminated contract is subject to exception of intervening event of revival of contract. The principle would apply only to a case where the contract is treated as at end by Plaintiff as on the date of filing of the suit. In a case where the contract is terminated, but subsequently parties act in performance of contract, Plaintiff would not be debarred forever from seeking specific performance merely because at one point of time, he elected to put an end to the contract.” The court clarified that the bar against seeking specific performance of a terminated contract applies only where the plaintiff treats the contract as finally ended as on the date of filing proceedings.
Bombay High Court Grants Interim Relief To Aditya Birla Housing In Dispute With Axis Bank
Case Title : Aditya Birla Housing Finance Ltd v. Axis Bank Ltd & Ors.
Case Number : Commercial Arbitration Petition No. 104 of 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 37
The Bombay High Court has granted interim protection to Aditya Birla Housing Finance Ltd after finding that Axis Bank, despite knowing that its loan was being taken over, allowed borrowers to misuse a small unpaid balance to continue operating an overdraft account and retain custody of mortgaged title deeds. Justice Sandeep V. Marne held that interim measures were necessary to protect the subject matter of arbitration between Aditya Birla Housing and the borrowers, even though the relief operated against Axis Bank, which is not a party to the loan agreement.
The court observed that in the arbitration between Aditya Birla Housing and the borrowers, relief would necessarily be sought in respect of the mortgaged property. “This is how the arbitral proceedings are bound to affect the Axis Bank,” it said. It further held, “If the interim measures are not granted against Axis Bank, it would frustrate the Petitioner's claim against the borrowers by selling the subject property. Petitioner would suffer irreparable loss if interim measures are not granted.” On that basis, the court concluded that "making interim measures against the third party–Axis Bank is clearly warranted in the facts of the present case."
Case Title: Sharekhan Limited v. Monita Kisan Khade & Anr.
Case Nos.: Arbitration Petition Nos. 532 & 557 of 2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 18
The Bombay High Court recently ruled that mere violation of SEBI's trade confirmation circular does not automatically make a broker liable for market losses, and it set aside arbitral awards that directed stockbroker Sharekhan Limited to reimburse investors for losses sustained in Futures and Options (F&O) trading. The Single Bench on 24th December, 2025, decided that investors who authorised an individual to trade on their behalf could not thereafter retract those trades and shift losses to the broker.
Justice Sandeep V. Marne held that clients who “relied on skills and took the risks in the volatility of the stock market, cannot later turn around and disown the trade transactions”, noting that regulatory violations may invite disciplinary action but do not automatically create civil liability for losses. behalf and consciously accept the risks of market volatility, they cannot later deny responsibility for those trades merely because the broker failed to maintain written or recorded pre-trade confirmations. In cases of blatantly unauthorised trading, the investor cannot be saddled with losses and the broker would be liable. However, where investors admit authorising a third party to trade for them, they cannot disown the resulting trades or losses.
Following the principles laid down in cases of Ulhas Dandekar v. Sushil Financial Services Private Limited, Erach Khavar v. Nirmal Bang Securities Private Limited and Peerless Securities Limited v. Vostok (Far East) Securities Private Limited, the court noted that SEBI/NSE circular violations may attract regulatory action but do not automatically create civil liability for market losses.
Case Title: Godrej And Boyce Manufacturing Company Limited Versus : Remi Sales And Engineering Limited
Case Number: Commercial Arbitration Petition No. 232 Of 2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 19
The Bombay High Court dismissed a petition under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ("Arbitration Act"), holding that once goods are put to use by the buyer, such conduct amounts to deemed acceptance under section 42 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 ("SOGA"), the buyer cannot later reject the goods on the ground of alleged defects. A claim for damages can be filed for breach of warranty but goods cannot be rejected, the court ruled.
Justice Sandeep V. Marne refused to interfere with an arbitral award that directed Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Company Limited (“Petitioner”) to pay over ₹4.25 crore to Remi Sales and Engineering Limited (“Respondent”) for stainless steel tubes supplied under a purchase order.
The Court observed: “Thus clause 6(b) does not constitute contractual variation with deeming fiction of 'acceptance' under Section 42 of the Sale of Goods Act and even if it is held to be contractual variation, Petitioner has failed to prove that the tubes were not in accordance with specifications. In my view, therefore the provisions of Section 42 of the Sale of Goods Act have rightly been invoked by the Arbitral Tribunal. The act of the Petitioner of inserting the tubes in the heat exchangers constitutes the act of doing something which is inconsistent with the ownership of the seller.”
Case Title: Imax Corporation vs E-City Entertainment (I) Pvt Ltd & Ors
Case Number: Commercial Arbitration Appeal (CARBA) (L) No. 38267 of 2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 20
The Bombay High Court has recently restored enforcement proceedings initiated by IMAX Corporation for execution of foreign arbitral awards against E-City Entertainment (I) Pvt Ltd for breach of contractual obligations, holding that the doctrine of res judicata applies even between different stages of the same enforcement petition. The court said it cannot revisit an objection of limitation merely because subsequent judgments may have taken a different legal view.
Allowing IMAX's appeal, the court's division bench observed that the limitation issue had already been decided by the Supreme Court and could not be reopened by the court. It clarified that res judicata applies even between different stages of the same proceedings, and a subsequent change in legal interpretation does not permit a court to revisit a binding earlier order. It said enforcement courts cannot re-examine the merits of a foreign award or expand the scope of “public policy” objection.
Case Title: Phalke Niketan Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. v. Adit Enterprises
Case Number: Arbitration Petition No. 29 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 11
The Bombay High Court has held that a civil suit filed by individual members of a housing society against a developer does not amount to abandonment of the arbitration clause in a redevelopment agreement. The Court said such a decision can be taken only by the society acting as a collective body.
A Single-Judge Bench of Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan said that once a co-operative housing society is formed, individual members give up their separate will to the collective will of the society. Courts cannot infer the society's intent from the conduct of its members.
The court held that support for the members' suit did not make it a suit by the society. Nor did it prevent the society from terminating the agreement and appointing a new developer. There was no basis to conclude that the arbitration agreement had been abandoned.
Bombay High Court Sets Aside Arbitral Award Passed With “Undue Haste” After Four-Year Delay
Case Title: Amit Engineers v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number: Commercial Arbitration Petition No. 847 of 2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 5
The Bombay High Court has set aside an arbitral award, holding that it was passed in undue haste after nearly four years of inaction and without giving the parties any opportunity of hearing.
A Single Bench of Justice Sandeep V Marne found that the arbitrator acted with undue haste and in clear breach of natural justice.
Rejecting the explanation offered for the long delay, the Court said, “The explanation put forth by the Arbitrator for the delay is factually incorrect. The Arbitrator has not heard the parties before making the Award. No evidence is recorded. No arguments are heard.”
Setting aside the arbitral award, the court said that the arbitrator “clearly misconducted” himself by calling three meetings held years earlier hearings on “many occasions”, by taking shelter under a non-existent pandemic to explain the delay, and by suddenly rushing to deliver the award after learning that his substitution was being sought.
Software Ownership Disputes Involving IPR Not Arbitrable: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Anand Khosala v Punam Kumari Singh
Case Number: Commercial Arbitration Petition No. 228 of 2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 10
The Bombay High Court has recently held that an arbitral tribunal was right in refusing to decide who owns a software product, saying such questions involve intellectual property rights that affect the public at large (rights in rem) and cannot be settled through private arbitration. A Single-Judge Bench of Justice Sandeep V Marne said that deciding ownership of the “Test Magic” software would inevitably involve ruling on trademark and copyright rights, which are not meant for arbitration.
The court said any decision on whether the trademark or software belonged to Singh or the LLP would amount to deciding rights against the whole world (right in rem). It added that such questions cannot be settled in arbitration, and clarified that Khosla and the LLP were free to approach a civil court if they wanted to restrain Singh or her husband from using, selling, or licensing the software. Finding no ground to interfere, the court dismissed the petition.
Court Intervention In Arbitrator Appointment Required Only If Institution Fails: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Jalaram Fabrics v. Nisarg Textiles Pvt. Ltd
Case Number: Arbitration Petition No. 267 of 2024 with Interim Application (L) No. 35308 of 2022
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 12
The Bombay High Court has held that court intervention for the appointment of arbitrators is required only when an arbitral institution fails to discharge its designated functions in appointing an arbitrator. A single-judge bench of Justice Sandeep V Marne held that once parties agree to resolve disputes through an arbitral institution, the appointment procedure prescribed by that institution must be followed.
“In case of an institutional arbitration, application for appointment of Arbitrator under Section 11(6) needs to be made only when the institute fails to perform its functions. In a case where the arbitration institute proceeds ahead by appointing the arbitrators and conducts arbitral proceedings, it is not necessary to approach the Court under Section 11(6) merely because one of the parties refuses to concur in appointment of arbitrator by the institute.”, the court observed.
SARFAESI Involves Enforcement, Not Adjudication; Does Not Bar Arbitration: Bombay High Court
Case Title : Tata Capital Housing Financing Ltd vs Inderjeet Sahni and others
Case Number : Commercial Arbitration Application (L) No .35431 of 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 58
The Bombay High Court on Monday held that initiation of proceedings under the SARFAESI Act does not bar arbitration between a lender and a borrower. The court clarified that SARFAESI proceedings are meant only for enforcement of security and do not involve adjudication of disputes. Arbitration, it held, is an adjudicatory process and can proceed in parallel. Justice Sandeep V. Marne made the observations while hearing petitions filed by Tata Capital Housing Finance Ltd seeking appointment of an arbitrator and interim relief against its borrowers under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
However, the court observed that proceedings under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act stand on a different footing. “Like arbitration proceedings, even proceedings under the RDDB Act are adjudicatory in nature as the arbitrator or the DRT adjudicates the claim of the banks or financial institutions.On the other hand, the remedy under the SARFAESI Act is merely in the nature of enforcement where no adjudication takes place. This is yet another reason why mere initiation of proceedings under the SARFAESI Act cannot be a ground for not permitting adjudicatory proceedings under the Arbitration Act and vice versa,” the court observed.
Case Title : State of Maharashtra vs Morya Infrastructure Pvt Ltd Beed
Case Number : COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION APPEAL NO. 01 OF 2023
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 86
The Bombay High Court at Aurangabad has dismissed the State of Maharashtra's challenge to an arbitral award of Rs. 596.60 lakhs, holding that objections to the constitution of the arbitral tribunal cannot be raised after filing of the written statement, counter-claim and commencement of evidence.
A Division Bench of Justices Arun R. Pedneker and Vaishali Patil-Jadhav on February 16, 2026, upheld the Commercial Court's May 6, 2022, order refusing to set aside the award dated February 11, 2018.
“In such circumstances, the objection raised at a belated stage, after filing of the written statement, counter-claim and after commencement of evidence, is clearly not in consonance with Section 16(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which mandates that a plea as to the lack of jurisdiction or improper constitution of the arbitral tribunal shall be raised not later than the submission of the statement of defence,” the court observed.
Case Title : Dealmoney Commodities Pvt. Ltd. v. Vijay Vithal Sawant & Anr.
Case Number : Commercial Arbitration Petition (L) Nos. 1665 & 1700 of 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 81
The Bombay High Court upheld an arbitral finding that Dealmoney Commodities Pvt Ltd executed “blatantly unauthorised” Futures and Options trades in the accounts of a retired couple, which resulted in the depletion of their investment portfolio, and restored compensation of over Rs. 33 lakh with 18 percent interest.
A Single Bench of Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh confirmed the investors' entitlement to Rs. 17,76,581 and Rs.15,32,073 respectively, with interest at 18 percent per annum from August 10, 2020, till payment, along with costs of Rs 25,000.
“The call transcripts precisely prove that the initiation of the trade was not by the Respondent but by the Petitioner's employee without any authorisation which renders the trades blatantly unauthorised. ,” the court observed.
Case Title : A. Navinchandra Steel Private Limited & Ors. v. Board of Directors of Abhyudaya Co-Op. Bank Ltd. & Ors.
Case Number : INTERIM APPLICATION (LODGING) NO.1785 OF 2026 [IN COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 742 of 2025]
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 79
The Bombay High Court has recently held that a multi-state co-operative bank can recover its loan dues through arbitration under Section 84 of the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002, which provides for statutory dispute resolution in matters concerning the business of such societies, and is not confined to approaching the Debt Recovery Tribunal under the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993.
Dismissing challenges to arbitral awards obtained by Abhyudaya Co-operative Bank Ltd, Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh ruled that there is no exclusive jurisdiction with the Tribunal under the RDB Act.
The Court said, “The statutory provision of RDB Act does not place an absolute embargo on the mechanism provided under the MSCS Act and on the contrary, admits of the right of a multi State co-operative society to initiate proceedings under MSCS Act to recover debts”.
Bombay High Court Upholds ₹32 Crore Arbitral Award Against Solapur Municipal Corporation
Case Title : The Commissioner, Solapur Municipal Corporation & Ors. v. M/s S.M.C.-G.E.C.P. Ltd (JV) with M/s S.M.C.-G.E.C.P. Ltd (JV) v. The Commissioner, Solapur Municipal Corporation & Ors.
Case Number : Commercial Arbitration Petition No. 444 of 2024 with Commercial Arbitration Petition No. 252 of 2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 72
The Bombay High Court rejected a challenge by the Solapur Municipal Corporation (SMC) against an arbitral award directing it to pay over ₹32 crore to a joint venture contractor. Justice Sandeep V. Marne, while upholding the award, observed that once it is established that project delays were attributable to the civic body's failures, all subsequent penalties and blacklisting orders against the contractor were rightly set aside. He held that the Award in the present case, dated 18th June 2020, “appears to be unexceptional warranting dismissal of the Arbitration Petition.”
The Court explained that once termination is found unjustified, awarding a reasonable percentage of unexecuted work as damages is justified. Noting that the Tribunal followed the same approach, the Court held that "the objection raised on behalf of the Municipal Corporation about absence of any evidence to prove actual cause of loss is misplaced deserving rejection.”
Housing Society Bound By Arbitration Clause In Individual Sale Agreements: Bombay High Court
Case Title : Shree Dev Shasan Jain Shwetambar Murtipujak Trust v. Veer Tower CHS Ltd. & Bhadra Enterprises v. Veer Tower CHS Ltd.
Case Number : Arbitration Application No. 103 of 2025 and Arbitration Application No. 360 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 73
The Bombay High Court held that a co-operative housing society, although a distinct legal entity, is a “veritable party” to the agreements signed by its individual members and is therefore bound by the arbitration clauses embedded within them. The Single Bench of Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan, emphasised that when a society is formed specifically to represent the collective interests of homebuyers, it inherits the obligations of arbitration contained in the individual sale agreements, and disputes arising from those agreements must be resolved through arbitration.
The Bench referred the dispute to arbitration and appointed Justice (Retd.) Akil Kureshi as the Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate all disputes between the parties.
The Court observed: “The very nature of the arrangement is that each constituent of the Society is a party to an arbitration agreement and when they form a society on the very same subject matter of their bilateral agreements, it would be a classic example of the Society being a veritable party to the collective arbitration agreement.”
Pending CBI Probe Not Adjudication: Bombay High Court Upholds Arbitral Award Against Central Railway
Case Title : Union of India v. M/s. Bridge Track And Tower Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : Arbitration Petition No. 221 of 2023
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 62
The Bombay High Court on Wednesday held that Central Railway cannot withhold undisputed payments to a contractor merely because a criminal case is pending in relation to another supply. The Court said a CBI investigation does not amount to adjudication under a contract and cannot, by itself, justify retaining money that is otherwise payable. A single bench of Justice Gauri Godse held that the Railways were required to first raise a recovery claim and subject it to adjudication before exercising any lien under the contract. It held, “Findings recorded in criminal proceedings would not bind the civil proceedings, if any, initiated by the petitioner to recover the amount alleged to have been fraudulently recovered by the respondent. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled to charge a lien on the amounts due and payable for the goods admittedly supplied under the first purchase order by relying upon its right to keep a lien on the ground that a criminal proceeding is pending regarding the amounts recovered by the respondent under the second purchase order.”
Bombay High Court Sets Aside ₹1.17-Crore Arbitral Award Enforcing Off-Book Cash Claims
Case Title : Jinam Arihant Realtors And Ors. v. Neha Yogesh Sachde
Case Number : Arbitration Petition (L) No. 20865 of 2023
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 65
The Bombay High Court has set aside an arbitral award directing a real estate partnership to pay over Rs 1.17 crore to a former partner, holding that the award sought to enforce rights allegedly arising from illegal and undocumented cash transactions. Allowing the challenge, Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan held that the arbitral tribunal had enforced rights flowing from a partnership arrangement that was shown to operate entirely outside lawful accounting. The court warned that if such transactions were allowed to be enforced, it would collapse the distinction between legal contracts and illegal bargains. "If such transactions, that are blatantly contrary to the rule of law, were to be permitted to be enforced by the legal system, there would be no difference between enforcement of a valid and legal contract and enforcement of bargains that are evidently in direct conflict with law", the court observed.
Bombay High Court Says Award-Holder Has No Right to Retain Deposit After Arbitral Award Is Set Aside
Case Title : Rashtriya Chemicals & Fertilizers Limited Vs. Thermax Limited
Case Number : Interim Application (L) No. 42351 of 2025 in Commercial Arbitration Appeal (L) No. 42190 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 56
The Bombay High Court recently held that Rashtriya Chemicals and Fertilizers Limited has no right to retain Rs 218.45 crore deposited by Thermax after the arbitral award in its favour was set aside, making it clear that the pendency of an appeal cannot be used to hold on to the money. A Division Bench of Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Gautam A. Ankhad said the legal position was straightforward once the award no longer existed. The court noted, “There is no arbitral award in existence, and, therefore, there is no question of the respondent suffering rigors of the arbitral award.” The court noted that the deposit was made only because the award and the interim order were in place. Once the award was struck down, Thermax could not be made to suffer the consequences of an award that no longer existed.
Arbitral Tribunals Cannot Grant Equity-Based Relief Unless Authorised By Contract: Bombay High Court
Case Title : Nirmal Bang Securities Pvt Ltd vs Shashi Mehra HUF
Case Number : Arbitration Petition No. 304 of 2024
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 59
The Bombay High Court has held that arbitral tribunals must decide disputes strictly in accordance with the contract and applicable law and cannot grant relief based on "notions of equity or fairness" unless the parties have expressly authorised such an approach. Setting aside an arbitral award directing a refund of brokerage, the court held that arbitrators are not courts of law empowered to dispense equitable relief and that once transactions are held to be authorised, their contractual consequences cannot be undone on equitable considerations alone. A single-judge bench of Justice Sandeep V. Marne made the observation while allowing a petition filed by Nirmal Bang Securities Pvt. Ltd., a registered stockbroker, which had challenged an appellate arbitral award passed under the dispute resolution framework of the National Stock Exchange. "Arbitral Tribunals are not courts of law who can invoke notions of equity or fairness unless the parties confer such jurisdiction under Section 28(2)," it held It further observed that even if regulatory or procedural lapses were established, such lapses may invite action by market regulators but cannot justify nullifying the contractual consequences of authorised transactions.
Case Title : Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority v. Mumbai Metro One Private Limited along with IA and Connected Matter
Case Number : Commercial Arbitration Petition No. 427 of 2024
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 97
The Bombay High Court has partly upheld the Rs. 496.48 crore arbitral award in favour of Mumbai Metro One Private Limited arising from the Metro Line 1 project, but has set aside nearly Rs. 248 crore awarded under three heads of damages, finding that those components were not backed by evidence.
Justice Sandeep V. Marne underscored that courts are required to respect the finality of arbitral awards and cannot interfere lightly. At the same time, he made it clear that intervention is justified where findings are perverse, legally untenable, or unsupported by evidence.
It observed, "Guesswork cannot be a short cut for production of evidence. Guesswork can be undertaken only when it is impossible to compute the exact quantum of losses suffered by the injured party. If evidence of sufferance of loss itself is not available, the Arbitral Tribunal cannot award damages of lesser sum than the one by presuming holding that some loss must have been suffered. When award of damages itself is not warranted due to absence of evidence, awarded claim cannot be sustained before Section 34 Court because the Tribunal awards far lesser sum or conservative sum than the one demanded."
Case Title : Khimchand Prithviraj Kothari Versus M/s. Earth Realtors
Case Number : Commercial Arbitration Petition (L) No. 37842 Of 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 94
The Bombay High Court has partly modified an arbitral tribunal's interim order in a redevelopment dispute, holding that the tribunal exceeded the scope of interim protection in prescribing the manner in which Transferable Development Rights (TDR) could be sold.
Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan was hearing an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, filed by landowner Khimchand Prithviraj Kothari against an interim order passed in favour of developer Earth Realtors.
“A plain reading of the right of first refusal framework… would indicate a new contractual arrangement that has been created,” the court observed. The court modified the directions to require prior notice to both the owner and the arbitral tribunal before any TDR sale, made such sale subject to tribunal approval, and directed that the proceeds be deposited in a separate bank account to be used only for redevelopment, with monthly disclosures.
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.
On the issue of enforceability of Clause 22, the Court held: “In my view, a clause in the redevelopment agreement for denial of damages or compensation to the developer can be enforced in law because of the peculiarity of the contract”.
Case Title : Exelixi Management Company Pvt. Ltd. v. Nishi Retails Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : Arbitration Petition No. 141 of 2018
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 108
The Bombay High Court has recently refused to set aside an ex-parte arbitral award arising out of a commercial toy retail franchise dispute, holding that the absence of a physical signature on a contract would not invalidate the arbitrator's finding that an arbitration agreement existed, particularly where correspondence between the parties indicated reliance on the agreement.
A single bench of Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan observed that “the absence of an actual physical signature would not come in the way of the reasonableness of the arbitrator's findings. Exchange of correspondence too can constitute an arbitration agreement”.
Case Title : Satnam Singh Ahuja And Ors. Versus Karvy Financial Services Ltd.
Case Number : ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 324 OF 2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 114
The Bombay High Court has recently reiterated that arbitral awards passed by an arbitrator unilaterally appointed by one party are liable to be set aside and that such illegality cannot be cured merely because the opposing party participated in the arbitration proceedings without raising an objection.
Applying the Supreme Court's recent ruling in Bhadra International (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Airports Authority of India, the court further reiterated that waiver of an arbitrator's ineligibility under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is permissible only through an express written agreement executed after the dispute arises and cannot be inferred from a party's conduct or participation in proceedings.
Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan held, “Evidently, the vice of unilateral appointment of an Arbitrator is not curable by uncontested participation in the arbitration proceedings. Evidently, equity would not supplant the law, and there is no scope for supplementing the law declared on the anvil of uncontested participation before the unilaterally appointed arbitrator.”
Case Title : M/s Space Master Realtors v. Mulund Sandhyaprakash CHS Ltd. & Anr.
Case Number : Arbitration Application (L) No. 35545 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 117
The Bombay High Court recently refused to appoint an arbitrator in a dispute arising out of a housing redevelopment project in Mumbai, holding that a dissenting flat owner who had deliberately refused to sign the development agreement could not be compelled to arbitrate claims brought by the developer.
Justice Sandeep V. Marne observed that arbitration is founded on consent and that the mere fact that redevelopment arrangements involve multiple interconnected agreements cannot bind a non-signatory to an arbitration clause.
The court said, “A member who dissents from the decision taken by the society and refuses to sign the Development Agreement, but is forced to act in terms of DA by application of principle of loss of individuality vis-à-vis society, cannot be treated as a veritable party to the DA and particularly to the arbitration agreement contained therein."
Bombay High Court Upholds Arbitral Award In Polimer-Ultra Media 'Jai Hanuman' License Fee Dispute
Case Title : Polimer Media Pvt Ltd vs Ultra Media and Entertainment Pvt Ltd
Case Number : ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 215 OF 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 112
The Bombay High Court on 5 March upheld an arbitral award directing Polimer Media Pvt Ltd to pay Rs. 30.45 lakh to Ultra Media and Entertainment Pvt Ltd in a dispute arising from a broadcasting license agreement for the television serial “Jai Hanuman.”
A Bench of Justice Gauri Godse held that the arbitral award did not warrant interference under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
The Court observed:
“Hence, in my view, by applying the standards as set out in the various decisions as discussed above, the arbitral award cannot be interfered with under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. The petition is therefore dismissed.”
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.”
Acceptance Of Insurance Claim Under Protest Not 'Accord And Satisfaction': Bombay High Court
Case Title : Oriental Insurance Company v Add On Retail Pvt Ltd
Case Number : COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION PETITION (L) NO. 30675 OF 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 166
The Bombay High Court held that when a claimant accepts the amount offered by an insurer under protest, such acceptance does not bar the claimant from seeking a higher amount before an arbitral tribunal. Justice Gauri Godse upheld an arbitral award enhancing the compensation payable to the insured after finding an error in the surveyor's assessment. The Court rejected the insurer's contention that the insured's acceptance of the amount amounted to accord and satisfaction. It observed: “However, in the present case, there is no admitted claim, and the controversy concerns the application of the principle of accord and satisfaction in light of the claimant's letter dated 16th October 2018 and the discharge voucher signed under protest. I have already recorded reasons that the said letter and the discharge voucher cannot be accepted as a full and final settlement of the claim. Hence, in view of the well established legal principles as discussed in the above paragraphs, the said letter and the discharge voucher cannot be accepted as accord and satisfaction of the claim.”
Figures In Conciliator's Report Do Not Bind Arbitrator: Bombay High Court
Case Title : ICICI Securities Ltd vs Riddhi Siddhi Investment and Anr
Case Number : COMM. ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 390 OF 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 158
The Bombay High Court on 17 March dismissed a petition filed by ICICI Securities Ltd, holding that the amount indicated in a conciliator's report does not constitute an award and does not bind the Arbitral Tribunal in determining the final claim. Justice Sandeep V. Marne upheld an arbitral award of Rs. 23.30 lakh passed in favour of Ridhi Siddhi Investment in a stock trading dispute arising out of margin trading transactions. The Court observed: “Thus, the amount indicated in the report of the Conciliator does not become the amount awarded to any party or against any party. The said amount has relevance only for the purpose of determination of payment of fees by the claimant for online arbitration. The amount reflected in the report of the Conciliator does not bind the arbitrator, who is not precluded from awarding the claim in the sum higher than the one reflected in the report of the Conciliator.”
Case Title : Reliance Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd vs Hiroo Hotchand Advani & Ors
Case Number : COMMERCIAL EXECUTION APPLICATION NO.43 OF 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 168
The Bombay High Court held that Reliance Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd, having encashed Rs 18.64 lakh offered by borrowers towards full and final settlement without first communicating any objection, must be deemed to have accepted the settlement. It ruled that the company's subsequent claim that the amount was accepted “under protest” was not a valid revocation and that the arbitral awards stood satisfied. Justice Abhay Ahuja held that once the amount was encashed without prior protest, the creditor could not later dispute the settlement or seek recovery of any further dues. “Admittedly, the Applicant had deposited the demand draft of Rs.18,64,351/- which was offered in full and final settlement by the Respondents and then the communication seeking to raise an issue of incorrect calculations, and that execution proceedings had been initiated for recovery stating that therefore, under protest, the demand draft has been deposited and the same would be adjusted against the total outstanding decretal dues, cannot be said to be a valid revocation as what is offered on condition must be taken as it is offered and the Applicant having encashed the demand draft without first communicating to the Respondents that they do not agree the proposal made by the Respondents, the Applicant must be assumed in terms of Section 8 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 to have accepted the proposal of the Respondents ", it held.
Case Title : Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd vs Microtex Energy Pvt Ltd
Case Number : COMM. ARBITRATION PETITION (L.) NO. 33928 OF 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 130
The Bombay High Court on Tuesday observed that an arbitral award passed through ad hoc arbitration cannot be invalidated merely because one of the parties is an MSME supplier who could have approached the Facilitation Council under the MSMED Act.
Justice Sandeep V. Marne dismissed a petition filed by Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) challenging an arbitral award passed in favour of Microtex Energy Pvt. Ltd,an MSME.
“Therefore, if parties opt for ad hoc arbitration, the award is not rendered invalid merely because one of the parties to the dispute is a supplier capable of seeking reference under Section 18 of the MSMED Act," the court held.
Fundamental Evidence Principles Cannot Be Ignored In Arbitration: Bombay High Court
Case Title : Arenel (Private) Limited Vs. M/s. Aakash Packaging
Case Number : COMM. ARBITRATION APPEAL (L) NO.30982 OF 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 126
The Bombay High Court on 9 March held that while arbitral proceedings are not strictly bound by the technical provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, the fundamental principles governing the burden of proof and the admissibility of evidence cannot be ignored to uphold an arbitral award that is patently illegal.
The Bench observed:
“Section 102 of the Indian Evidence Act provides that the burden of proof in a suit or proceeding lies on that person, who would fail if no evidence at all, was given on either side. The strict rules of the Evidence Act may not be enforced in an arbitral proceeding but the fundamental rules of law and evidence cannot be ignored to affirm an Award which on the face of it is patently illegal.”
Case Title : Edelweiss Financial Services Ltd vs Percept Finserve Pvt Ltd & Ors
Case Number : COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION APPLICATION (L) NO.5187 OF 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 139
The Bombay High Court recently reiterated that when an arbitral award is set aside, the period between the commencement of the earlier arbitration and the date of the court's order is required to be excluded while computing limitation for initiating fresh arbitral proceedings.
A single bench of Justice Sandeep V. Marne held that “Thus, when Arbitral Award is set aside by the Court either under Section 34 or under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act, the period between commencement of arbitration and date of order of the Court is required to be excluded for the purpose of computation of limitation for commencement of fresh arbitral proceedings with respect to the dispute so submitted".
Case Title : Osterreichischer Lloyd Seereederei (Cyprus) Ltd. Versus Victore Ships Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 398 OF 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 129
The Bombay High Court on Tuesday held that courts can grant interim protective measures under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act to secure the amount awarded under a foreign arbitral award even after a petition seeking its recognition and enforcement has been filed.
Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan made the observation while hearing a petition filed by Osterreichischer Lloyd Seereederei (Cyprus) Ltd against Victore Ships Pvt Ltd seeking interlocutory protection to secure the awarded amount pending enforcement of a foreign arbitral award dated March 23, 2020.
Rejecting the respondent's objection to the maintainability of the petition, the court said the jurisdiction of a Section 9 court continues until the foreign award becomes a decree of an Indian court.
“It is after the stage at which the foreign award becomes a decree of an Indian Court that the words 'but before it is enforced in accordance with section 36' used in Section 9(1) of the Act would present any basis for the Section 9 Court to refrain from entertaining prayers for any protective measures, since at that stage execution proceedings would have commenced, without the need to file a new set of proceedings,” the court observed.
Bombay High Court Upholds UPL Insurance Award, Holds Dispute Is Of 'Quantum' Not 'Liability'
Case Title : United India Insurance Company Limited vs UPL Limited
Case Number : COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION PETITION (L) NO. 10809 OF 2024
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 241
On 22 April, the Bombay High Court held that it would not interfere under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 where an arbitral tribunal adopts a plausible view that a dispute concerns “quantum” rather than “liability”, and upholds an arbitral award arising from an insurance claim under an Industrial All Risk Policy.
Justice Sandeep V. Marne dismissed the petition filed by United India Insurance Company Ltd and upheld the arbitral award in favour of UPL Ltd. He observed:
“The Arbitral Tribunal thus had ample material before it for arriving at the conclusion that the accident was the proximate cause for overhauling of GT Engine. By no stretch of imagination, can it be contended that the findings recorded by the Arbitral Tribunal are so grossly perverse that this Court must invalidate the Award in exercise of powers under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act.”
Arbitrator Need Not Frame Issue Absent Relief Claim In Statement of Claim: Bombay High Court
Case Title : Ambuj Hotel and Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. v Ministry of Railways and Anr.
Case Number : Commercial Arbitration Petition No. 169 of 2026 and 835 of 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 246
The Bombay High Court on 7 April held that an Arbitral Tribunal is not required to frame a specific issue where a party merely raises a grievance in the Statement of Claim (SoC) without seeking any corresponding relief.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh upheld an award in a dispute between the Ministry of Railways and Ambuj Hotel and Real Estate Pvt. Ltd., and dismissed cross-petitions under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. She observed:
“There was no claim raised by the Claimant challenging the imposition of penalities as being improper and seeking refund of the penalty amount. Mere pleadings in the Statement of Claim raising grievance about the penalty imposed without seeking further relief in that respect did not necessitate framing of an issue in that regard.”
Case Title : Airports Authority of India v Satyavan Vishnu Agate & Ors.
Case Number : Review Petition (L) No. 18565 of 2025 and Commercial Arbitration Petition (L) No. 33803 of 2025 and connected petitions
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 247
The Bombay High Court has held that, in a case involving airport premises, the question of whether a dispute can be referred to arbitration requires examination by the court hearing interim relief petitions under the Arbitration Act, especially where a law may bar arbitration.
The court said that while arbitral tribunals usually decide their own jurisdiction, this case is different because the sole arbitrator appointed by consent later resigned, leaving no tribunal in place.
Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan observed that "Ordinarily, even if an arbitration agreement had exclusion or even in the absence of any arbitration agreement, parties to a dispute can always consent to proceed to arbitration, with such consent constituting the arbitration agreement. However, where there is a statutory bar, the question that would arise is whether the parties can at all agree to proceed to arbitration. This would be a neat question of jurisdiction. The question of jurisdiction would ordinarily lie before the Arbitral Tribunal but in Section 9 proceedings, the question of jurisdiction would be considered by the Section 9 Court."
"...since the Arbitral Tribunal came to be appointed by consent under Section 9 of the Act, with no occasion for this Court to consider the issues now raised in the Review Petition, in my opinion, the ends of justice warrant a reconsideration of the original Section 9 Petitions afresh on merits, and a case for review on merits has been made out.", it added.
Case Title : Veeramaneni Venugopalrao and Ors. Versus Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd.
Case Number : INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 6578 OF 2025 IN ARBITRATION PETITION NO.166 of 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 234
The Bombay High Court has reiterated that an arbitral award dispatched to a party's last known address amounts to valid service in law, even if the party does not actually receive it, and the limitation to challenge the award begins from the date of attempted delivery.
Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh held that, “Once the signed copy of the Award is shown to have been dispatched to the last known address of the Applicants, the same is sufficient to raise the deeming fiction under Section 3(2) and to draw an inference under Section 114 of Evidence Act,” rejecting the contention that limitation had not commenced due to non-receipt.
The ruling came in a challenge by the partners of Akshar Enterprises to an arbitral award dated December 20, 2021, rendered under the Mumbai Centre for International Arbitration in favour of Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd.
Statutory Bar On Arbitrability Can Be Examined While Granting Interim Relief: Bombay High Court
Case Title : Airports Authority Of India Versus Satyavan Vishnu Agate, Sole Proprietor Of M/S Vision Enterprises
Case Number : : Review Petition (L) No. 18565 Of 2025 In Commercial Arbitration Petition No. 219 Of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 215
The Bombay High Court on 16 April held that courts can examine arbitrability, including statutory bars, while deciding petitions under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, especially where no Arbitral Tribunal exists. Section 9 allows a Court to grant interim protection measures before, during, or after arbitral proceedings to safeguard the subject matter of the dispute. A Bench of Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan allowed the review petitions filed by the Airports Authority of India (AAI) and restored the Section 9 petitions for fresh adjudication, noting that it had withdrawn its earlier consent to arbitration on the ground that it violated the Airports Authority of India Act, 1994. He held:
“However, where there is a statutory bar, the question that would arise is whether the parties can at all agree to proceed to arbitration. This would be a neat question of jurisdiction. The question of jurisdiction would ordinarily lie before the Arbitral Tribunal but in Section 9 proceedings, the question of jurisdiction would be considered by the Section 9 Court.”
Stockbroker Cannot 'Wriggle Out' Of Liability For Agent's Unauthorized Acts: Bombay High Court
Case Title : IIFL Capital Services Limited v. Sukhadeo Gorakha Bhil
Case Number : Arbitration Appeal No. 128 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 225
The Bombay High Court on 21 April, held that a stockbroker remains liable for unauthorised and fraudulent trades executed by its sub-brokers and agents, particularly where such acts arise in the course of agency and result in abnormal brokerage gains at the client's expense. Justice Arun R. Pedneker upheld the arbitral award directing IIFL Capital Services Limited to pay Rs. 14.37 lakh to investor Sukhadeo Gorakha Bhil and dismissed the appeal filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. He observed:
“The stock broker cannot wriggle out of the Alliance Partners actions, which are in the course of his agency, although the Broker / Appellant may have not permitted the Alliance Partner to indulge into fraudulent trades. The actions of the Alliance Partner has resulted in the profits to Stock Broker and the Broker is liable for the act of Alliance Partner and his servants.”
Bombay High Court Sets Aside Arbitral Award Against MSRDC In Toll Collection Dispute
Case Title : Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation Ltd. v. Jai Laxmi Constructions Engineers and Contractors
Case Number : Commercial Arbitration Petition No. 899 of 2018
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 213
The Bombay High Court has recently set aside an arbitral award in a dispute between Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation Ltd. (MSRDC) and Jai Laxmi Constructions Engineers and Contractors, holding that no arbitration agreement existed governing disputes under the Toll Collection Agreement and that an arbitration clause contained in a separate lender-related agreement could not be invoked for such disputes.
A bench of Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan observed, “Therefore, the main test of Section 7(1) has not been met by the arbitration clause in the Replacement Agreement when applied to disputes raised entirely under the Toll Collection Agreement. On the disputes under the Toll Collection Agreement, the parties have agreed that Jai Laxmi would have resort to the Principal Civil Court at Mumbai."
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."
Case Title : RKEC Projects Limited v. Maharashtra Maritime Board & Anr.
Case Number : Commercial Arbitration Petition (L) No. 7085 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 201
The Bombay High Court has recently declined to restrain the invocation and encashment of bank guarantees worth Rs 31.86 crore in a dispute between RKEC Projects Limited and the Maharashtra Maritime Board over the construction of a passenger jetty and terminal near the Gateway of India in Mumbai. The ruling came on a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which allows courts to grant temporary protection until disputes are decided through arbitration, before Justice Sandeep V. Marne.
At the heart of the decision was a settled principle. Bank guarantees stand on their own footing, and courts do not ordinarily interfere. “It is only in exceptional and rare cases, where there is an element of egregious fraud or where the case involves irretrievable injury or irretrievable injustice or where there are special equities, that the court would be justified in making interim order restraining encashment of bank guarantee,” the Court observed.
Appeal Not Maintainable Against Arbitral Tribunal's Impleadment Order: Bombay High Court
Case Title : Mayank J. Shah And Ors. Versus Raju V. Shah And Ors.
Case Number : COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 409 OF 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 216
The Bombay High Court on 8 April, held that an order allowing impleadment of parties cannot be challenged in appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 merely because the Arbitral Tribunal passed it under Section 17, which empowers the Tribunal to issue interim and procedural orders during arbitration to manage the proceedings and grant temporary reliefs. A Bench of Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan clarified that Section 37 contains an exhaustive list of appealable orders, and procedural directions such as joinder of parties do not fall within its scope. He observed:
“Ordinarily, an order of impleadment which is part and parcel of procedural directions and indeed even affecting substantive rights of the parties owing to joinder being allowed, would not be appealable under Section 37(2)(b) of the Act. The jurisdiction under Section 37 is one that entails an exhaustive listing of permissible appeals, which are a creature of statute. Impleadment of a party would not constitute an interlocutory protective measure as envisaged under Section 17 of the Act.”
Arbitrator Must Follow Fair, Evidence-Based Process Even In Ex-Parte Proceedings: Bombay High Court
Case Title : Shinde & Sons v. Godawari Marathwada Irrigation Development Corporation & Anr.
Case Number : Commercial Arbitration Appeal No. 1 of 2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 208
On 15 April, the Bombay High Court held that even in ex-parte proceedings, an arbitrator must ensure a fair, evidence-based and unbiased process in terms of Section 25 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and cannot treat claims as established merely because the other side remains absent. A Division Bench of Justices Arun R. Pedneker and Vaishali Patil Jadhav dismissed the appeal filed by Shinde & Sons and upheld the order of the District Judge at Beed setting aside the arbitral award under Section 34 of the Act. It held:
“It was necessary for the arbitrator to follow the procedure under Section 25 of the Arbitration Act. Although reference is made to Section 25 of the Act in the award, the evidence in support of the claims appears to be lacking and the claims cannot be said to be established.”
Case Title : Shri Mahavir Developers & 10 Ors. Versus Shri Mahavir Jaina Vidyalaya & 6 Ors.
Case Number : COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION PETITION NO.128 OF 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 185
The Bombay High Court has recently held that a developer cannot avoid arbitration by claiming tenancy protection under the Small Causes Courts Act when its right to use the property is only incidental to a development agreement.
Upholding the arbitral award, the court rejected the developer's objection that the dispute was not arbitrable on the ground that it involved eviction of a licensee, which would fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Small Causes Court under the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act (PSCC Act). “The objection on arbitrability on the ground of exclusive jurisdiction under the PSCC Act is untenable since the license granted to the Developer was incidental to the development rights conferred on the Developer. Once such development rights are not held as being amenable to enforcement by way of specific relief, the license would also become irrelevant,” the court observed.
Case Title : INFRA Poonam Developers LLP v. Jasbir Singh & Ors.
Case Number : Arbitration Application (L) No. 37441 of 2025 with Interim Application (L) No. 11418 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 187
The Bombay High Court has condoned a 258-day delay in filing a plea for appointment of an arbitrator, holding that efforts taken by a developer to prevent acquisition of a redevelopment project by the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA) constituted sufficient and exceptional cause. A bench of Justice Sandeep V. Marne allowed INFRA Poonam Developers LLP to initiate arbitration against Jasbir Singh and other partners, observing that the cause to seek arbitration arose only after MHADA acquired the property and the firm lost possession.
The court noted: "The Applicant was thus required to take several steps for ensuring preservation of the subject matter of arbitration, before it could seek adjudication of disputes with other partners of the Firm."
Arbitrator Under MSCS Act Can Presume Membership If Not Specifically Denied: Bombay High Court
Case Title : Yash Multi State Rural Cooperative Credit Society Ltd. v. Bharat Arjundas Narang and Others
Case Number : Arbitration Appeal No. 23 Of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 193
The Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court on 30 March, held that membership of a cooperative society is a jurisdictional fact for invoking arbitration under Section 84 of the Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act (MSCS Act). However, if such membership is not specifically denied, the arbitrator may presume its existence from the material on record. Justice Arun R. Pedneker allowed the appeal filed by Yash Multi State Rural Co-operative Credit Society Ltd. (the Society) and set aside the order of the Principal District Judge, Ahmednagar, which had interfered with the arbitral award, restoring the award in favour of the Society. He held:
“Ordinarily the Society grants loans only to members of the Society. Accordingly, no issue is framed as regards whether the borrowers are the members of the Society and further no evidence is lead to that effect. In this factual situation the Arbitrator had not committed any error.”
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."
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"
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.”
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.”
Case Title: Veeramaneni Venugopalrao and Ors. Versus Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd.
Case Number: INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 6578 OF 2025 IN ARBITRATION PETITION NO.166 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 234
The Bombay High Court has reiterated that an arbitral award dispatched to a party's last known address amounts to valid service in law, even if the party does not actually receive it, and the limitation to challenge the award begins from the date of attempted delivery.
Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh held that, “Once the signed copy of the Award is shown to have been dispatched to the last known address of the Applicants, the same is sufficient to raise the deeming fiction under Section 3(2) and to draw an inference under Section 114 of Evidence Act,” rejecting the contention that limitation had not commenced due to non-receipt.
The ruling came in a challenge by the partners of Akshar Enterprises to an arbitral award dated December 20, 2021, rendered under the Mumbai Centre for International Arbitration in favour of Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd.
Arbitral Tribunal's Refusal To Implead Proposed Parties Is Appealable: Bombay High Court
Case Title : Deepak Shripat More Vs Udaysingh Harinarayansingh Rajpurohit & Ors
Case Number : ARBITRATION PETITION (L) NO.40041 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 300
The Bombay High Court has held that where an arbitral tribunal finds it lacks jurisdiction over persons sought to be added to arbitration proceedings, such a decision can be challenged, though it declined to interfere with such a refusal in a dispute between two partners in a property development firm.
Justice Somashekar Sundaresan held that such intervention may be necessary because, “if the arbitration proceedings are conducted entirely without the involvement of someone who is later found, after the award is passed, to be a veritable party, the parties would be put to severe hardship with the entire arbitral proceedings being found to have been conducted without the necessary parties' involvement.”
Non-Signatory Group Companies Cannot Be Automatically Impleaded In Arbitration: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Hind Offshore Private Limited v. OCS Services (India) Private Limited
Case Number : Commercial Arbitration Petition (L) No. 41270 of 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 301
The Bombay High Court has recently held that every group company connected to a commercial transaction cannot automatically be dragged into arbitration just because it belongs to the same corporate group as a signatory party or played some role in the underlying transaction.
Explaining the scope of the “group of companies” doctrine, Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan held, “What becomes clear is that whether a non-signatory is a veritable party to the arbitration agreement is the subject matter of assessment. The doctrine does not relate to the underlying agreement and the transactions contracted therein, but to the arbitration agreement. The doctrine is not that every group company that had any role at all to play must be subjected to arbitration proceedings. The enquiry is always meant to be fact-specific. In any operating contract, there could be multiple other parties with which one of the contracting parties has a contract. They would not become liable to action in any arbitration that a group company has with any third party.”
Case Title: New India Assurance Company Limited v M/s Seapool Pvt Ltd
Case Number : Commercial Arbitration Petition (L) No. 6069 of 2023
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 303
The Bombay High Court has recently upheld an arbitral award rejecting an insurer's reliance on an undisclosed expert opinion used to reduce an insured's claim, holding that the challenge essentially sought a reappreciation of evidence.
Justice Gauri Godse held the arbitral tribunal was justified in discarding the insurer's expert report. “ The expert opinion's report is also rightly not accepted by the Tribunal. It is held that the expert was appointed without any intimation to the claimant. Although the Insurance Company contended that the expert was appointed on the aspect of depreciation, the Tribunal, on an appreciation of the pleadings and evidence, held that the expert had given an opinion not only on depreciation but also on improvement, salvage, and other technical factors. Nothing is shown in this petition that the appointment of an expert by the Insurance company is permissible for independently assessing the loss and discarding the surveyor's assessment, which is as per the applicable rules.”
Bombay High Court Refers Talent Management Firm's Dispute With YouTuber Prajakta Koli To Arbitration
Case Title: OneDigital Entertainment Pte Ltd. v. Prajakta Koli
Case Number: Commercial Arbitration Petition (L) No. 15100 of 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 295
The Bombay High Court recently referred disputes between Singapore-based talent management firm OneDigital Entertainment Pte Ltd. and YouTuber-actor Prajakta Koli to arbitration.
A single bench of Justice Sandeep V. Marne appointed former Bombay High Court judge Justice Sadhana Jadhav as the sole arbitrator to adjudicate disputes arising out of a Performance of Artists Management Agreement dated September 10, 2015.
OneDigital had approached the High Court seeking interim relief before the commencement of arbitral proceedings.
During the hearing, both sides agreed to move the dispute to an arbitral tribunal instead of continuing with the interim relief proceedings, with the arbitration to be conducted as a domestic arbitration seated in Mumbai.
Bombay High Court Holds Arbitral Tribunal Cannot Rewrite EPC Contract Or Shift Contractual Risk
Case Title : The President of India through Chief Engineer (Construction)/CPM/NGP Central Railway v. KEC International Ltd.
Case Number : Commercial Arbitration Petition No. 855 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 296
The Bombay High Court has partly set aside an arbitral award in favour of KEC International Ltd. in its dispute with Central Railway, holding that the Arbitral Tribunal went beyond the contract by treating increased earthwork quantities as a change in scope and granting additional payment.
Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh observed that a lump sum EPC contract places the risk of quantity variations and site conditions on the contractor. This risk cannot later be shifted to Central Railway through arbitration. She held:
“The Arbitral Tribunal, instead of enforcing the terms of the contract has re-written the contract by including the variation in the quantities of earthwork as a change of scope as defined under Article 13 at the behest of the Claimant, which right was not available to the Claimant under the contract and has converted the lump sum contract into item wise contract. Re-writing of contract would be breach of fundamental principles of justice entitling the Court to interfere under Section 34 of Arbitration Act. A party to the agreement cannot be made liable to perform something for which it has not entered into a contract.”
Bombay High Court Allows Builder To Pursue Fresh Arbitration Despite Appeal Against Earlier Award
Case Title: Vardhaman Builders Versus. Narendra Balasaheb Ghatge and Anr
Case Number : Commercial Arbitration Application No.115 Of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 290
The Bombay High Court has allowed Vardhaman Builders to pursue fresh arbitration for damages over the termination of a redevelopment agreement, despite a pending appeal against an earlier arbitral award in the same dispute.
Justice Sandeep V. Marne noted that the Supreme Court had refused to interfere with an earlier Bombay High Court order that allowed Vardhaman Builders to pursue fresh arbitration limited to damages.
He held, “The Apex Court has permitted continuation of parallel proceedings viz. Appeal, as well as fresh arbitral proceedings meaning thereby that a reference to arbitration can be made for adjudication of claims of the Applicant for damages/compensation even during pendency of the Appeal.”
Case Title: Ajazul Haque Khan Versus ICICI Bank Limited
Case Number : COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION PETITION (L) NO. 16052 OF 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 297
The Bombay High Court recently cautioned that banks conducting recovery proceedings “at an industrial scale” through self-chosen Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) platforms risk concentrating multiple disputes before the same arbitrator.
The court held that banks cannot sidestep the requirement of independent arbitral appointments by offering borrowers a purported choice from a list of ODR platforms curated by the bank itself.
“In any case, for a bank to conduct recovery proceedings at an industrial scale across multiple accounts through a self-chosen ODR Platform, from its curated pool of arbitrators, can lead to multiple cases being handled by the same individual arbitrator. The ODR Platforms would need to enhance their catchment area and expand their pools, but recovery proceedings where orders under Section 17 are passed with barely any display of facts much less complex facts, would hardly fall within the ambit of the kinds of arbitration where it is a custom and practice to appoint from a specialised pool of arbitrators.”
Case Title: D S Textiles Versus IIFL Finance Limited
Case Number: ARBITRATION PETITION (L) NO. 12097 OF 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 265
Recently, the Bombay High Court came down heavily on banks and non-banking finance companies for attempting to legitimise unilateral arbitrator appointments through institution-backed and algorithm-based selection mechanisms, holding that such practices are manipulative devices to circumvent Supreme Court rulings on arbitrator independence and neutrality.
Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan set aside arbitral orders passed in proceedings initiated by IIFL Finance and issued directions for compliance with Supreme Court law on arbitrator neutrality. He observed:
“...the attempt by finance companies and banks to pretend to have cleansed the arbitrator-appointment process by getting an “institution” of their choice to make a purportedly “independent” appointment is wholly untenable and completely illegal, and indeed a colourable and manipulative device to circumvent the law declared by the Supreme Court.”
Case Title : Nayara Energy Ltd. v. M/s Mahendra Sales Services
Case Number : Commercial Arbitration Petition No. 691 of 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 268
The Bombay High Court has held that arbitral tribunals cannot import principles of fairness and natural justice into commercial contracts contrary to their express terms.
The court made the observation while setting aside an arbitral award passed against Nayara Energy Ltd. that had directed restoration of a petrol pump dealership in Barmer and payment of ₹4 lakh compensation to the franchisee.
The court held that the tribunal acted contrary to Sections 28(2) and 28(3) of the Arbitration Act by quashing the termination despite Clause 19 of the franchise agreement permitting termination for breach. It further held that the tribunal erred in restoring a determinable contract despite Section 14(1)(c) of the Specific Relief Act barring specific enforcement of such contracts.
Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh held that "As the notion of fairness and equity cannot be read into contract dehors the terms of the commercial contract, the findings of the Learned Arbitrator for quashing and setting aside the termination is contrary to the substantive law and hence, stands vitiated."
Case Title: Hitesh Coal Traders v. Indapur Dairy & Milk Products Ltd.
Case Number : Commercial Arbitration Application No. 93 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 262
The Bombay High Court on 5 May held that an arbitration agreement can be inferred even in the absence of an express arbitration clause in the original purchase orders, where subsequent contractual documents and the conduct of the parties indicate a clear intention to arbitrate.
Justice Sandeep V. Marne allowed a Section 11 application by Hitesh Coal Traders and appointed Advocate Suyash Gadre as the sole arbitrator to adjudicate disputes with Indapur Dairy & Milk Products Ltd. arising from alleged unpaid dues of Rs 19,73,409 in coal supply transactions. He observed:
“mere absence of arbitration clause in Purchase Orders cannot be a reason for inferring that parties did not intend to resolve disputes through arbitration. By acknowledging the Delivery Challans and Tax Invoices and by making payments against the invoices containing arbitration clause the Respondent has agreed for resolution of disputes through the mechanism of arbitration. The intention of parties to arbitrate can thus easily be gathered in the facts of the present case."
No TDS Payable On National Highways' Land Acquisition Arbitral Awards: Bombay High Court
Case Title : Tukaram Kana Pawara (Deceased) Thr. Legal Heirs v. The Project Director Project Implementation Unit
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 914 of 2026 and connected matters
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 288
The Bombay High Court has held that deducting TDS from compensation awarded under arbitral awards in National Highways acquisition cases is impermissible, holding that forcing land losers to seek tax refunds would defeat the purpose of the land acquisition law's tax exemption.
Referring to Section 96 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, the Court observed,
"Any interpretation which requires deduction of tax at source and thereafter compels land losers to seek refund from the Income Tax Department would defeat the very purpose of the legislation. Such an approach, which forces farmers and land losers to move from one authority to another, is clearly contrary to the objects and reasons of the 2013 Act."
Justice Arun R. Pedneker passed the ruling while allowing a batch of writ petitions challenging District Court orders that permitted withdrawal of compensation amounts deposited pursuant to arbitral awards, subject to deduction of 10% towards TDS and transfer of the deducted amount to the Competent Authority for Land Acquisition (CALA).
Mumbai High Project Dispute: Bombay High Court Orders L&T To Keep ₹150 Crore Bank Guarantee Alive
Case Title: Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited vs. Larsen & Toubro Limited
Case Number: CARBP(L) 15345 OF 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 278
The Bombay High Court has directed Larsen & Toubro Ltd. to continue renewing and keeping alive bank guarantees worth approximately ₹150.34 crore furnished to ONGC Ltd. in a dispute over liquidated damages arising from the Mumbai High North redevelopment project.
The court held that ONGC, though largely unsuccessful in the arbitration after the tribunal awarded higher claims to L&T, could still seek interim protection under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act in a rare and compelling case.
It ordered the guarantee to remain alive until the final disposal of ONGC's challenge to the arbitral award under Section 34.
Justice Sandeep V. Marne observed, “Refusal of interim measures would result in a manifest disproportion as the Petitioner would lose the security worth 10% of the contract price while Respondent's only burden is the continued existence of the bank guarantee.”
Financial Institution Need Not Be Secured Creditor To Invoke SARFAESI Arbitration: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Aditya Birla Housing Finance Limited v. Axis Bank Limited & Ors.
Case Number: Commercial Arbitration Application No. 95 of 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 272
The Bombay High Court has held that a financial institution need not already be a secured creditor to invoke statutory arbitration under the SARFAESI Act, while referring a loan takeover dispute between Aditya Birla Housing Finance Ltd. and Axis Bank to arbitration.
Justice Sandeep V. Marne held that Section 11 of the SARFAESI Act does not require a bank or financial institution invoking arbitration to already be a secured creditor.
The court observed, “Section 11 of the SARFAESI Act by itself does not use the expression 'secured creditor'. Therefore plain language of Section 11 does not require that the bank or financial institution must also possess the status that of a secured creditor.”
Conflicting Contractual Clauses Do Not Override A Clear Arbitration Agreement: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Generic Engineering Construction and Projects Ltd. VERSUS Maharashtra Maritime Board
Case Number : COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 1070 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 256
The Bombay High Court has held that when contractual clauses appear inconsistent or conflict with a clear arbitration clause, courts must lean in favour of arbitration, emphasising that such an approach is necessary to avoid frustrating valid arbitration agreements.
A bench of Justice Sandeep V. Marne made the observation while appointing a sole arbitrator in a dispute between Generic Engineering Construction Projects Ltd and the Maharashtra Maritime Board arising from termination of a construction contract, holding that the parties had clearly agreed to arbitrate even disputes relating to termination.
“In a case where few other clauses in the contract may be slightly inconsistent or may be in conflict with the main arbitration clause, the Courts will have to rule in favour of the arbitration rather than giving weightage to those confusing or conflicting clauses. Once there is clear agreement to arbitrate, the Courts would tend to ignore other clauses of contract which may create confusion about existence of arbitration agreement. After all arbitration is aimed at declogging the overburdened Courts and therefore Courts need to necessarily rule in favour of arbitration rather than concentrating on other inconsistent clauses for holding that specific arbitration clause present in the contract would get nullified by those clauses.”
Nine Years Of Silence In Arbitration Equals Abandonment Under Section 32(2)(c): Bombay High Court
Case Title : Supama Realtors LLP and Others v. Mulchand Kaluchand Ranka and Others
Case Number : Commercial Arbitration Application No. 242 of 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 287
The Bombay High Court on 8 May held that prolonged inactivity in arbitral proceedings, coupled with absence of any steps for nearly nine years, amounted to implied abandonment, resulting in termination of proceedings under Section 32(2)(c) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Justice Sandeep V. Marne dismissed the plea seeking appointment of a substitute arbitrator, holding that the arbitral proceedings stood terminated and could not be revived. He observed:
“It is incomprehensible that settlement talks can go on for 9 long years. It is not that the Applicants were writing to the learned arbitrator about progress of the settlement talks or have even kept the arbitrator informed about settlement talks happening.”
Bombay High Court Holds Denial Of 30% Solatium Is Computational Error In NH Land Acquisition Cases
Case Title : Prashant Vasant Koregaonkar & Ors Versus Competent Authority
Case Number: ARBITRATION APPEAL NO. 70 OF 2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 286
The Bombay High Court recently held that denial of 30% solatium in arbitral awards arising from compulsory land acquisition for National Highways projects constitutes a computational error, which can be corrected under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, without undertaking a merits review.
Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan allowed a batch of appeals filed by landowners, including Prashant Vasant Koregaonkar and others, challenging arbitral awards in proceedings under the National Highways Act, 1956. It directed payment of 30% solatium to the claimants and modified the impugned awards accordingly.
“The law declared by the Supreme Court renders the computation of the solatium as imperative. Such computation is merely computation of 30% of the value of the compensation. The error in the Arbitral Award is clearly a computational error. Correcting this error would not undermine or impact any other component of the Arbitral Award. Therefore, the mere computation of the 30% amount payable on the compensation awarded for the land acquisition in question, in my opinion, in the facts of this case, falls within the ambit of a computational error.”
Bombay High Court Orders Disclosure Of Bhutan Contract In Xcalibur–Oil Field Exclusivity Dispute
Case Title: Oil Field Instrumentation India Pvt. Ltd. v. Xcalibur Multiphysics Group S.L. & Ors.
Case Number : Commercial Arbitration Petition (L) No. 16156 of 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 308
On 8 June, the Bombay High Court held that parties cannot shield alleged breaches of exclusivity obligations under a joint venture agreement from judicial scrutiny by withholding the very contract in question on the ground of confidentiality.
Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan allowed the appeal filed by Bengaluru-based Oil Field Instrumentation India Pvt. Ltd., set aside the arbitral tribunal's order under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and remanded the matter for fresh consideration while directing disclosure of the Government of Bhutan's airborne geophysical survey contract central to the dispute. He held:
“With the deepest respect to the Learned Arbitral Tribunal, for the reasons set out in this judgement, I have to disagree. Exclusivity obligations in joint venture agreements entail precious and vital commercial elements that sophisticated parties negotiate and contract with careful attention to detail. The need for strict construction of a non-compete obligation cannot justify withholding the material relevant to adjudicate whether such obligation has been breached.”
Bombay HC Grants Relief To Adtrack, Says Housing Federation Tried To 'Wriggle Out' Of Hoarding Deal
Case Title : Adtrack Media LLP v. Happy Valley Homes CHS Federation Ltd.
Case Number: Arbitration Petition (L.) No. 7690 of 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 313
The Bombay High Court on Monday held that a housing federation was seeking to "wriggle out of contractual obligations" after changing its mind about the location of a proposed digital advertisement hoarding and granted interim protection permitting the project to proceed pending arbitration.
Justice Sandeep V. Marne held that the federation had changed its mind about the site location of the hoarding and that the contractor would suffer irreparable loss if interim protection was denied.
“A strong prima-facie case is made out by the Petitioner for grant of interim measures before commencement of the arbitral proceedings. The Federation is seeking to wriggle out of contractual obligations because it has changed its mind about the site location of the hoarding. The Agreement has not been terminated by the Federation, who has in fact expressed willingness for installation of the hoarding structure at an alternative site. The Petitioner would suffer irreparable loss if interim measures are not granted since the acts of the Federation have made Petitioner spend considerable amount (Rs.25,00,000/- as claimed in the Petition),” the court held.
Bombay High Court Quashes Awards Against Guarantors Despite IBC Moratorium On Debt
Case Title: Ajeet Madhukar Mulay vs Abhyudaya Co-Operative Bank Limited & Ors
Case Number: COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 843 OF 2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 321
The Bombay High Court on Tuesday held that arbitral awards resulting in enforcement of a debt that has become temporarily unenforceable due to a statutory moratorium run contrary to the fundamental policy of Indian law.
The court consequently quashed two awards obtained by Abhyudaya Co-operative Bank against guarantors of insolvency resolution bound Nirmangold Alloys Pvt. Ltd. and Nirmangold Plasttech Pvt Ltd.
Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh held that the arbitral tribunal continued proceedings and passed awards despite a moratorium operating in respect of the debt. The court concluded that the awards could not be sustained.
Holding that the awards resulted in enforcement of a debt that was temporarily incapable of enforcement because of a statutory bar, the Court observed,
“The impugned Awards resulting in enforcement of debt, which by reason of the statutory interdict is incapable of being enforced albeit temporarily, runs contrary to the fundamental principles of Indian law which recognises enforcement of laws in respect of legally enforceable debts. The impugned Awards disregard the binding judicial pronouncements of this Court as well as the Hon'ble Apex Court, are violative of fundamental policy of Indian law and are liable to be set aside under Section 34(2)(b)(ii) of Arbitration Act.”
Case Title: Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited v. Sapura Fabrication SDN BHD (now known as VTEB Fabrication SDN BHD)
Case Number: Commercial Arbitration Petition No. 720 of 2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 326
The Bombay High Court has reiterated that an arbitral award arising from an international commercial arbitration seated in India cannot be set aside on the ground of patent illegality.
The court held that allegations that an arbitral tribunal ignored evidence or arrived at perverse findings fall within the ground of patent illegality, which is unavailable for challenging such an award. It dismissed Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd.'s challenge to an award in favor of Malaysia-based contractor Sapura Fabrication Sdn. Bhd. (now known as VTEB Fabrication SDN BHD).
Justice Sandeep V. Marne held that the arbitration qualified as an international commercial arbitration because Sapura is a company incorporated in Malaysia, even though the arbitration was seated in India. The Court held that ONGC's challenge was largely founded on allegations of perversity and non-consideration of evidence.
Observing that such objections fall within the grounds of patent illegality, Justice Marne held:
“The ground of perversity is repeatedly pleaded in the Petition and the elements of perversity in the findings recorded by the Arbitral Tribunal are repeatedly sought to be demonstrated on behalf of the Petitioner during the course of submissions. However, the vice of perversity is relatable to the ground of patent illegality under Section 34(2A) of the Arbitration Act, which ground is not available for challenging the Award made in an international commercial arbitration.”
Case Title: Shashisumeet Production Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. Kuresh R. Kushesh @ Dhiren (with connected matters)
Case Number: Notice of Motion No. 665 of 2019 in Commercial Suit No. 621 of 2017; Interim Application No. 625 of 2021 in Commercial Suit No. 21 of 2021
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 320
The Bombay High Court has held that a dispute does not become non-arbitrable merely because one side alleges fraud or claims that it has criminal or public overtones.
Referring a dispute between television production company Shashisumeet Production Pvt. Ltd. and investor Kuresh R. Kushesh to arbitration, the Court said such allegations, by themselves, do not take the matter outside the jurisdiction of an arbitral tribunal.
"Merely on the ground that there are “criminal overtones” or because a party claims that there are “public overtones”, the dispute would not become non-arbitrable. The Agreement having been signed by both, the Plaintiffs as well as the Defendant, and that instrument having an arbitration clause, allother contentions about the evidentiary value of facts in relation to the existence of the bargain in the Agreement squarely fall in the domain of the Arbitral Tribunal.," Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan held.
Case Title : Fimbank P.L.C. vs Mr. Rajeev Suresh Bhatia & Ors
Case Number: COMMERCIAL EXECUTION APPLICATION NO. 55 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 319
The Bombay High Court has rejected an objection by two guarantors of a USD 5 million factoring facility to the maintainability of execution proceedings initiated by Malta-based Fimbank P.L.C. to enforce a Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) Court judgment in India.
Justice Abhay Ahuja held that a penal notice issued by the DIFC Court and a subsequent certificate relating to satisfaction of the judgment fulfilled the requirement of a certificate regarding satisfaction or adjustment of the decree.
The objection was raised by Rajeev Suresh Bhatia and Suresh Tulsidas Bhatia, the Managing Director and Chairman respectively of Bhatia Traders Co. LLC.
The Court held that the DIFC Court's Penal Notice dated October 24, 2023 declaring the judgment “final and executory” and the certificate dated December 9, 2025 certifying it as “conclusive and executable” were sufficient to satisfy Section 44A(2) CPC.
"True that, under Article 7(2) of the Law of the Judicial Authority at Dubai International Financial Centre, Law No. 12 of 2004, the Courts are required to affix the executory formula on the Judgment/Decision, Order or ratified Arbitral Award however, in response to an Application under the provisions of Rule 45.20, a Penal Notice dated 24th October, 2023 certifying that the Judgment under execution is final and executory as required by the provisions of Part 45 of the DIFC Court Rules and the certificate dated 9th December, 2025 entitled “Certificate in relation to satisfaction of Judgment” certifies that the Judgment is “conclusive and executable”.”
Bombay High Court Upholds Award In Paharpur–Siemens Dispute, Reaffirms Limited Scope Of Section 34
Case Title: Paharpur Cooling Towers Ltd. v. Siemens Ltd.
Case Number: Commercial Arbitration Petition No. 996 of 2019
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 316
On 8 June, the Bombay High Court reiterated that under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, courts cannot reappreciate evidence or substitute a plausible view taken by an arbitral tribunal merely because another interpretation of the contract or evidence is possible.
Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan dismissed the petition filed by Paharpur Cooling Towers Ltd. and upheld the arbitral award in favour of Siemens Ltd. in its entirety. He held:
"In my opinion, this analysis is a reasonable and commercially commonsensical interpretation of a commercial contract. It would not be open for this Court to substitute one plausible view taken by the Learned Arbitral Tribunal with another plausible view that is canvassed as being more acceptable and more logical."
Case Title: Tata Capital Financial Services Ltd. v. Priyanka Communications (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Case Number: Interim Application No. 434 of 2025 in Commercial Summary Suit No. 87 of 2022
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 315
On 8 June, the Bombay High Court held that Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 must be construed liberally to facilitate arbitral reference and cannot be defeated by procedural technicalities such as insisting on a separate application for referral.
Justice Abhay Ahuja referred Tata Capital Financial Services Ltd.'s Rs.36.10 crore loan recovery dispute with Priyanka Communications (India) Pvt. Ltd. and its guarantors to arbitration under Clause 21 of the Working Capital Demand Loan Agreement dated 2 August 2018. He observed:
“It is indeed true that Section 8 of the Arbitration Act is mandatory but it also cannot be ignored that Section 5 of the said Act clearly brings out the object of the Act viz. that of encouraging resolution of disputes expeditiously and where there is an arbitration agreement, Section 8 has to be construed keeping the legislative intent in mind. In my view, the legislative intent requires a Court to interpret Section 8 widely and not in a restrictive fashion, as would be the case if it were to be held that a separate Interim Application ought to have been filed making the same plea as made before this Court by the learned Senior Counsel on 11th September 2025 and in the written submissions filed in this Court, as the same would take away or rather delay reference of disputes to be adjudicated by the agreed mode of arbitration."
Case Title : Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited v. Swiber Offshore Construction Pte. Limited
Case Number : Commercial Arbitration Petition (L) No. 17832 of 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 327
The Bombay High Court recently reiterated that interim protection in arbitration matters is not meant to extend rights beyond what parties have agreed between themselves.
The court made the observation while refusing Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd.'s request to continue a USD 14.82 million bank guarantee furnished by Swiber Offshore Construction Pte. Ltd. The request came after an arbitral tribunal rejected ONGC's liquidated damages claim and directed return of the security.
A single-judge bench of Justice Amit Borkar held that ONGC had failed to establish the existence of such exceptional and compelling circumstances as would justify post-award interim protection.
The Court observed,"The object of Section 9 is to preserve existing securities so that the subject matter of the dispute remains protected pending adjudication. It is not intended to extend existing rights beyond limits agreed upon by the parties."
Case Title: Apurvakriti Infrastructure Private Limited vs Tata Projects Limited and Anr
Case Number : COMM. ARBITRATION APPLICATION NO. 23 OF 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 341
On 17 June, the Bombay High Court held that an arbitration clause contained in a principal contract cannot be imported into a subcontract unless the subcontract specifically incorporates the arbitration clause itself.
Justice Arun R. Pedneker dismissed a Commercial Arbitration Application filed by Apurvakriti Infrastructure under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act against Tata Projects Ltd, holding that no arbitration agreement existed between the parties in relation to a Rs. 58.27 crore subcontract for ballastless track work in the Navi Mumbai Metro Rail Project. He held:
“Considering the judgements as noted above in M. R. Engineers And Contractors Private Limited (supra), NBCC (India) Limited (supra) and Hirani Developers (supra) and Inox Wind Limited (supra) and also considering the tender document, this Court holds that Clause 31 of the General Conditions of Contract signed between the Respondent No.1 and CIDCO is not incorporated in the Tender-cum-Work Order dated 2 March, 2015 executed between the Respondent No.1 and the Applicant. In absence of arbitration agreement between the parties, it would not be possible for this Court to refer the disputes to arbitration.”
Case Title: Eicher Motors Limited v Ashutosh Ranjit Majumdar
Case Number: COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION PETITION (L) NO. 21283 OF 202
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 347
The Bombay High Court on 8 June held that an arbitral award becomes patently illegal when the tribunal relies on material not disclosed to a party or taken from external sources without granting an opportunity to respond.
Justice Sharmila U Deshmukh while hearing a petition filed by Eicher Motors Ltd. (Eicher), set aside an award granting interest and costs in favour of Ashutosh Ranjit Majumdar after finding that the tribunal relied on undisclosed Yahoo Finance data while computing compensation. The Bench held:
“In the present case, after conclusion of hearing, the material was sourced by the Arbitral Tribunal itself without supplying a copy to the Petitioner and without granting any opportunity to the Petitioner. The computation based on such document would amount to patent illegality.”
Case Title : M/s Traveira Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd. v M/s Toto Toya Spin Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number: Arbitration Petition No. 21 of 2023
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 346
The Bombay High Court on 8 June held that an arbitral award passed by an arbitrator unilaterally appointed under an association's bye-laws, despite the absence of an arbitration agreement and where one party was not a member of the association, is contrary to Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the public policy of India.
Justice Gauri Godse allowed a petition filed by Traviera Silk Mills and set aside an arbitral award passed in favour of Toto Toya Spin under the Bombay Yarn Merchants Association and Exchange Limited bye-laws. She observed:
“Hence, in view of these facts, there is substance in the arguments raised on behalf of the petitioners that the impugned award is based on a unilateral constitution of the arbitral tribunal by the association by relying on the byelaws of the association to which the petitioners are admittedly not members. Hence, in absence of any arbitration agreement between the petitioners and respondent no.1 and in the absence of a valid constitution of the arbitral tribunal, the impugned award would not be sustainable as it is against the public policy of India.”
Dissenting Flat Owners Cannot Stall Redevelopment Project By Withholding Consent: Bombay High Court
Case Title : Wadhwa Estates and Developers (India) Private Limited v. Moon Craft Apartments Co-operative Housing Society Limited & Ors.
Case Number: Commercial Arbitration Petition (L) No. 13424 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 345
On 18 June, the Bombay High Court held that dissenting members of a co-operative housing society cannot stall an approved redevelopment project by refusing to execute consent declarations required under a redevelopment agreement, observing that the collective will of the society, and not the wishes of individual members, governs such projects.
Justice Amit Borkar granted interim relief to Wadhwa Estates and Developers (India) Pvt. Ltd. and directed the dissenting members of Moon Craft Apartments Co-operative Housing Society to furnish the requisite declarations, while also restrained them from creating third-party rights in their flats but declined to direct them to vacate the premises immediately or appoint a receiver to take possession. He held:
“Therefore, redevelopment cannot proceed on the basis of consent of every individual member in every case. The law recognises the reality that collective decisions must govern such matters. Otherwise, even a single member may prevent implementation of a project desired by the overwhelming majority."
Stock Exchange Bye-Laws Cannot Compel Arbitration Of Fraud Disputes: Bombay High Court
Case Title: ABB India Limited Versus Sunil Hariram Jaisingh And Ors
Case Number: COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION PETITION (L) NO. 32954 OF 2024
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 328
The Bombay High Court on 9 June held that although stock exchange bye-laws carry statutory force, they cannot compel arbitration of every shareholder dispute, particularly where serious allegations of fraud arise and the dispute falls outside the scope of arbitrability.
Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan allowed the challenge and quashed an arbitral award dated 6 August 2024, which had directed ABB India Ltd to restore 1,550 ABB shares and 310 Hitachi Energy India shares to shareholder Sunil Hariram Jaisingh or alternatively pay compensation equivalent to their market value. The Bench observed:
“The bye-laws of a stock exchange constitute subordinate law and are tabled in Parliament, having the force of statutory provisions. While such disputes of the nature set out in the aforesaid clause are made subject to arbitration, the law on arbitrability of disputes cannot be given a go-by. Indeed, every grievance raised by a shareholder cannot be said to be brought within the ambit of arbitration – for example, a grievance about accounting fraud by a listed company, made by a shareholder cannot be arbitrable. A shareholder who contends that a decision by the board of a listed company was taken negligently and that has resulted in losses for which damages are claimed, could arguably not be the intended beneficiary of the Master Circular.”
Arbitral Tribunals Must Respect Contract Terms While Ensuring Business Efficacy: Bombay High Court
Case Title : Public Works Department Got of Maharashtra National Highways Versus Khare And Tarkunde Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number: ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 262 OF 2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 330
The Bombay High Court on 12 June held that Section 28(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 does not permit arbitral tribunals to ignore contractual terms but requires them to interpret the contract in a manner that gives effect to business efficacy.
A Bench of Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan partly allowed petitions filed by the Maharashtra Public Works Department (PWD) and upheld the arbitral award dated 14 April 2023 in favour of Khare and Tarkunde Infrastructure Pvt Ltd (KTIPL) on damages, while setting aside the award of 18% compound interest. He held:
“I must hasten to add that Section 28(3) of the Act is not a license to ignore the terms of the contract at all, but it is a statutory recognition that when parties invest their trust in an Arbitral Tribunal to adjudicate their disputes, the Arbitral Tribunal would take into account the terms of the contract as opposed to the earlier position of adjudicating only “in accordance with” the contract. It is in extraordinary situations such as the matter at hand, that it is arguable that the scheme of the fine balance of reciprocal promises that the parties wove together may be required to be given business efficacy where it otherwise presents completely irrational and absurd consequences.”
Financial Hardship Alone Cannot Justify Payment Of Disputed Claim: Bombay High Court
Case Title : The Capturing Factory ( Division of Israni Entertainment India Limited V/s. Ullu Digital Limited & Another
Case Number: COMM ARBITRATION PETITION (L) NO.9509 OF 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 333
The Bombay High Court on Tuesday held that financial hardship by itself cannot justify directing payment of a disputed claim at an interim stage.
Refusing to order Ullu Digital Ltd. to secure or deposit about ₹2.58 crore claimed by the producer of the web series 'KINK 2', the Court observed that treating financial pressure as a sufficient reason for payment would blur the distinction between admitted and contested claims.
Justice Amit Borkar held that the material on record did not warrant interim relief. The Court also declined to restrain Ullu from continuing to stream and exploit KINK 2, observing that the parties would have to pursue their remedies before an arbitral tribunal.
“Merely because a party is facing financial pressure does not automatically mean that every disputed claim must immediately be treated as payable. If financial difficulty were accepted as sufficient reason for directing payment, the distinction between an admitted claim and a disputed claim would disappear. Courts dealing with applications at an interim stage are required to proceed on settled legal principles. Therefore, while the hardship alleged by the petitioner may be a relevant circumstance, it cannot by itself provide a sufficient basis for granting the relief sought.”, the court observed
Case Title : Arch Construction Co. Versus Union of India
Case Number : EXECUTION APPLICATION (L) NO. 39969 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 348
The Bombay High Court has held that, for the purpose of excluding a period while computing limitation, it is not necessary that the limitation period should have commenced or expired during the period sought to be excluded.
Observing that "the period excluded has to be simply excluded", the court ruled that the period excluded by the Supreme Court during the COVID-19 pandemic must be left out while calculating the limitation for the execution of an arbitral award.
Justice Abhay Ahuja made the observation while allowing an execution application filed by Arch Construction Co against the Union of India and directing the Registry to waive its objection on limitation and register the proceedings.
“Accordingly, under the Scheme of the Limitation Act for a period to be excluded for computation of limitation, it is not necessary that the period of limitation should have commenced or expired during the said period. The period excluded has to be simply excluded.It is only when fresh limitation has to commence for extending the limitation in situation such as acknowledgment of liability or payment of debt, that the said acts should have occurred before the expiry of the prescribed period of limitation and that there is no such requirement for excluding the period of limitation”, it ruled.
Case Title: Mahaguj Collieries Ltd. Versus Adani Enterprises Ltd.
Case Number :COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 483 OF 2018
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 356
The Bombay High Court on Thursday set aside an arbitral award directing Mahaguj Collieries Ltd to pay about ₹32.79 crore to Adani Enterprises Ltd towards land acquisition expenses incurred for the Machhakata coal block in Odisha.
The court held that the dispute could not have been decided through a summary award.
Observing that the tribunal had failed to analyse the contractual provisions or the requirements of the Contract Act before directing payment, the court held:
"Remarkably, the Impugned Award contains no analysis of Sections 56 and 65 of the Contract Act – they are summarily invoked without applying the ingredients of the provisions to the facts of the case. Equally, there is no analysis of the provisions of the CMSA to analyse and indicate the nature of the agreement between the parties, as to how they had contracted to share the risk apportionment between them in the event of the CMSA getting terminated or becoming void."
Gauhati High Court
Case Title : Dhanjit Sarma v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : WP(C) 661/2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(GAU) 7
The Gauhati High Court has recently allowed a writ petition against ESIC authorities over non-payment of dues under a government procurement contract, despite the existence of an arbitration clause, after finding the state authority's conduct arbitrary.
The court observed, "In such facts and circumstances, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the refusal of the respondent No.3 to make payments is an arbitrary and unreasonable attempt, violating the protection guaranteed by Article 14 of the Constitution of India.There is no impediment to adjudicate the grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition only because of a clause in the General Terms and Condition of the GeM which requires referral of disputes arising out of the contract to arbitration. This Court has noticed that there is no clause in the contract or the GTC which allows withholding of payments beyond 10(ten) days after issuing the CRAC. Therefore, the respondent No.3 remains liable to release the contracted amount to the petitioner forthwith”
Case Title : Ekta Shakti Foundation v. State of Assam & Anr.
Case Number : Arb.P./27/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(GAU) 12
The Gauhati High Court has appointed its former judge Justice Achintya Malla Bujor Barua as sole arbitrator in a dispute between Ekta Shakti Foundation and the State of Assam, holding that, in the peculiar facts of the case, an arbitration plea can be entertained even without a formal notice where a valid arbitration agreement is undisputed. A Bench of Justice Soumitra Saikia said, "it appears that the dispute between the parties have not been resolved and on the other hand there is a method for taking recourse to resolving such disputes expressly agreed upon by the parties by way of reference to arbitration. The only hurdle that is presented before the Court by the Respondents is non issuance of a notice under section 21 and thereby the power required to be invoked by the referral Court under section 11(6) cannot be invoked until and unless such agreed terms are enforced by the parties in terms of the said agreement. "
Case Title : Lokesh Anand Singhal & Another v Pride Realty and Others
Case Number : Case No. : Arb.A./5/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(GAU) 11
The Gauhati High Court on 31 March, held that once the State designates a Court as a Commercial Appellate Court under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, the appellate forum is determined strictly by such designation and not by the ordinary pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Judge. A Bench comprising Justice Mridul Kumar Kalita dismissed an appeal filed by Lokesh Anand Singhal and Shilpi Anand Singhal, holding that the High Court lacked jurisdiction as the statutory appellate remedy lay before the designated Commercial Appellate Court.
The Bench observed: “Section 13(1) of the Commercial Court Act provides that 'any person aggrieved by the judgment or order of a Commercial Court below the level of a District Judge may appeal to the Commercial Appellate Court within the period of sixty days from the date of judgment or order'.”
Sub-Contract Dispute Clause Bars Import Of Arbitration Clause From Principal Contract: Gauhati HC
Case Title : Yumiko Global Infra Tech Pvt. Ltd. v. PRL Gepong JV
Case Number : Arb.P./1/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(GAU) 16
The Gauhati High Court on 3 June held that a sub-contract that contains its own specific dispute resolution clause cannot import the arbitration clause from the principal contract, even if it describes the principal contract as “part and parcel” of the sub-contract.
The Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Medhi dismissed a petition filed by Yumiko Global Infra Tech Private Limited (Yumiko) against PRL-Gepong JV (PRL) under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking appointment of an arbitrator in a contractual dispute arising from a sub-contract arrangement. He observed:
“As already mentioned above, the arbitration Clause contained in Clause 29 of the original agreement cannot have any application to the sub-contract, inasmuch as the sub-contract itself contains a specific clause for resolution of disputes namely Clause 5, which has been referred to hereinabove.”
Case Title: Techno Steel and Craft Industries & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number: Arb.P./16/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(GAU) 17
The Gauhati High Court has held that Noida was the juridical seat of arbitration in a dispute between Techno Steel and Craft Industries and the Inland Waterways Authority of India (IWAI), and therefore declined to appoint an arbitrator for want of territorial jurisdiction.
Justice Soumitra Saikia held that the parties had effectively agreed to Noida as the arbitral seat under the contract.
The court observed, “This Court will have to hold that in terms of the agreement, the parties have decided to agree that the 'arbitral seat' will be at 'Noida' in terms of Section 20(1),”
“Merely because of the use of the term 'venue' would not be sufficient to indicate that the 'arbitral seat' between the parties has not been fixed as decided at 'Noida' inasmuch as there are no contrary indications upon a plain reading of the agreement including the arbitration clause that the 'venue' is merely a 'place' or one of such place where arbitration proceeding will be conducted and therefore, not the 'juridical seat' of arbitration.”, It added.
Kerala High Court
Case Title : Athira K.S. v. Kotak Mahindra Prime Ltd. & Anr.
Case Number : Arb.A No. 23 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (KER) 8
The Kerala High Court has held that its role is limited when hearing an appeal against an interim order passed under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. At this stage, the court cannot examine whether the arbitrator was properly appointed or has the authority to act. A Single Judge Bench of Justice S Manu said such objections must be raised before the arbitral tribunal itself.
“Competency of the Arbitral Tribunal is a matter to be raised before the Tribunal by the party having a contention that the Arbitrator is incompetent. Such a contention cannot be considered in this arbitration appeal,” the court said. “If there is serious dispute regarding the propriety of engagement of the arbitrator, the same shall also be raised before the arbitral tribunal,” the court said. The appeal was dismissed, with liberty to the appellant to seek appropriate relief from the arbitrator.
No Substantive Review Maintainable Against Orders Appointing Arbitrators: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Koshy Phillip v. Thomas P. Mathew & Ors.
Case Number: R.P. 1582 of 2025 in A.R. No. 179 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (KER) 6
The Kerala High Court ruled that only limited procedural correction and not a substantive review is permissible of orders appointing or refusing to appoint an arbitrator under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. A single-judge bench of Justice S Manu said the law on arbitration is a self-contained code and does not permit courts to reopen such orders on merits, as that would slow down arbitration instead of speeding it up.
The court cautioned that allowing substantive review of Section 11 orders would cut directly against this objective, observing that “being a self-contained and exhaustive code on arbitration law, the Act carries the imperative that what is permissible under the law ought to be performed only in the manner indicated, and not otherwise.”
The court clarified that only a narrow procedural review is possible to correct obvious or patent errors. Anything more would amount to reopening the merits, which the Act does not allow. The court warned that “entertaining petitions for substantive review against orders issued under Section 11 of the Act would defeat the purpose and object of arbitration law.”
Kerala High Court Sets Aside Arbitral Award For Relying On Findings Of Set-Aside Award
Case Title : Jimmy Elias v. Elizabeth Jasmine and Ors
Case Number : Arb.A No.24 of 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (KER) 21
The Kerala High Court has recently set aside an arbitral award after holding that the arbitrator committed a jurisdictional error by treating findings from an earlier arbitral award, which had already been set aside, as 'alive and final.' A bench comprising Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V. M. observed the arbitrator was required to consider the dispute afresh but failed to do so. Instead, the arbitrator proceeded on the assumption that conclusions recorded in the earlier arbitration continued to hold the field. The bench also noted that the arbitrator had failed to decide the counterclaim in accordance with law, despite evidence being available on record. That failure, the court said, independently vitiated the award. It further held that the Commercial Court had not properly exercised its jurisdiction while dismissing the challenge. “There has been no independent assessment of the pleadings or re-appreciation of the evidence which, in the context of the present proceedings, the learned Arbitrator is expected and supposed to do before arriving at a finding,” the court said.
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 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.”
Case Title : Raghavan V.T. v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : WP(C) No. 32088 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (KER) 37
The Kerala High Court recently held that once an arbitral award is set aside under Section 34of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the matter cannot be treated as remanded to the arbitrator unless a party had sought recourse to Section 34(4) during the pendency of the challenge proceedings.
Justice C. Jayachandran, rejected the National Highways Authority of India's (NHAI) plea of “implicit remand” finding that no such request had ever been made and that the District Court had merely set aside the award, and granted it 45 days to seek review.
The Bench observed:
“In the instant case, recourse to Section 34(4) has not been made by any of the parties. This Court takes stock of the fact that the learned District Judge has merely set aside the Award, without mentioning or referring anything about the remand or remit, presumably for the reason that there exists no such power.”
Case Title : Manappuram Asset Finance Ltd. v. Abdul Saleem A.B. & Ors.
Case Number : AR Nos. 16, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (KER) 47
The Kerala High Court has recently held that when an arbitral award is declared unenforceable during execution proceedings, the legal effect is akin to the award being set aside, and fresh arbitral proceedings can be initiated only after issuing a fresh notice invoking arbitration under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
“Once the arbitral award is declared as unenforceable/nullity in the eye of law by a competent court, even during execution proceedings, the impact of such a finding is akin to that of setting aside an award. The outcome remains the same. The award loses its legal sanctity, becomes inoperative and loses all its force. Under such circumstances, also, declaration of law in M/s.Agro Indus Credits Limited would squarely apply. Therefore, if the execution court finds that an arbitral award is unenforceable and invalid for any reason, in order to initiate fresh arbitral proceedings, it is essential to make a fresh request/issue fresh notice as contemplated under Section 21 of the Act, 1996,” the Court observed.
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.
Case Title : God's Own Country Health Resorts v Marriot Hotels India Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : OP(C) NO. 2962 OF 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (KER) 49
The Kerala High Court on 23 February, observed that interim relief granted under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the Act) does not automatically get vitiated merely because arbitral proceedings were not commenced within 90 days as required under Section 9(2) of the Act.
Justice T.R. Ravi clarified that proceedings to enforce the interim relief would also constitute proceedings under Section 9, and therefore the 90-day calculation is not limited to the original interim relief order.
The Bench held:
“Going by the judgment in Amazon.com(supra), even orders for enforcement of a protection order given under Section 9(1) would continue to be an order under Section 9(1). The statutory provision does not say that arbitral proceedings should be started within 90 days of the first order issued under Section 9(1).”
Case Title : Anoop Nambiar v. Union of India and Ors
Case Number : AR 47 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (KER) 54
The Kerala High Court on Friday held that the High Court cannot invoke its powers under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, in disputes governed by the Special Economic Zones Act, 2005, where the statute vests the power to appoint an arbitrator with the Central Government and the requirements for the exercise of Section 11 jurisdiction are not satisfied.
A coram of Justice S Manu rejected an arbitration request seeking the appointment of an arbitrator to resolve disputes with a company operating in the Infopark Special Economic Zone. The court observed that the SEZ Act provides for designated courts to adjudicate civil disputes arising in Special Economic Zones, and in their absence, such disputes must be referred to arbitration, with the arbitrator to be appointed by the Central Government.
Case Title : ED&F Man Liquid Products Italia Srl and Ors v. Emil Traders Private Limited
Case Number : Appeal (ICA) No. 1 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (KER) 53
The Kerala High Court recently held that courts possess wide powers under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act to grant interim measures, even after the arbitral award is passed but before its enforcement.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. held that “the expressions “securing the amount in dispute” and “such other interim measure of protection as may appear to the Court to be just and convenient” are important features of the said section, which confer wide and sweeping powers on the Court to pass interim measures even after an award is passed but before its enforcement.” it observed
Case Title : Cherutty Muhammed and Ors v. Sevens Football Association
Case Number : FAO No. 28 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(KER) 70
The Kerala High Court has held that the arbitration clause in the bylaws of the Sevens Football Association does not bar a civil suit in disputes among its members or office bearers, as the clause is limited to disputes between the association's units. A coram of Justice S. Manu made the observation while dismissing an appeal challenging an interim injunction granted by the Additional District Court, Thrissur in a dispute over the use of the name “Sevens Football Association”, its abbreviation “SFA” and logo.
“The arbitration clause in the bylaw speaks about resolution of disputes between various units of the Association by resorting to the procedure under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The arbitration clause is therefore intended only for resolution of disputes between various units and hence in the case of disputes between members of the Association or among its office bearers, arbitration cannot be invoked", the Bench held.
Writ Appeal Not Entertainable When Arbitration Offers Adequate Remedy: Kerala High Court
Case Title : M/s RCC-ACC (JV) v. Board of Major Port Authority and Anr
Case Number : WA No. 834 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(KER) 64
The Kerala High Court on 6 April, declined to entertain a writ appeal arising from termination of a contractual agreement, holding that when efficacious alternative remedies exist under arbitration, the writ court ordinarily refrains from exercising its discretionary jurisdiction. A Division Bench of Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V.M observed: “…having regard to the fact that there are efficacious alternative remedies available where such issues can be more conveniently dealt with and decided, the writ court in appropriate situations decline to exercise this discretionary remedy.”
Case Title : R Sampathkumar v. The Marine Products Export Development Authority & Ors.
Case Number : OP(C) No.77 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(KER) 79
The Kerala High Court has held that a company's winding up does not automatically halt arbitral proceedings or shield its promoters from contractual obligations undertaken in their personal capacity.
Justice T.R. Ravi held, “Sections 278 and 279 of the Companies Act can have operation only with regard to claims against the Company and a winding up order will not automatically operate as a stay of further proceedings before the Arbitrator. ”
It added, "The petitioner sought to place reliance on Section 34(2)(a)(i) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act to submit that since the Company was wound up, there is an incapacity. Section 34(2)(a)(i) only says that an arbitral award may be set aside by the court if the party making the application establishes on the basis of the record of arbitral tribunal that a party was under some incapacity. As already found, the incapacity of the Company will not in any manner affect an award against its promoters."
The ruling came while dismissing an original petition filed by R. Sampathkumar challenging a Commercial Court order refusing to stay execution of a 2009 arbitral award passed in favour of the Marine Products Export Development Authority (MPEDA).
Case Title : Malabar International Gold Designs Private Limited v. Anil Kumar K.V
Case Number : AR No. 263 of 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(KER) 76
The Kerala High Court has recently referred to arbitration a dispute between three Malabar Group companies and certain shareholders over allegations that the shareholders breached non-compete provisions in the companies' Articles of Association by becoming involved in rival jewellery businesses.
Justice S Manu was dealing with petitions filed by Malabar International Gold Designs Private Limited, Luster Gold Palace (India) Private Limited and Malabar Gold Supermarket (Kannur) Private Limited seeking appointment of an arbitrator.
The Court said it would not examine the merits of the shareholders' objections at this stage, as doing so would exceed the limited scope of the proceedings.
“If this Court ventures to address such contentions on merits, it may amount to transgression of the constricted jurisdiction under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996. I, therefore, refrain from making any observations on the merits of the contentions of both sides except rejecting the contention of the respondents that there is no binding arbitration agreement,” it said.
Disputes On Corporate Restructuring Must Be Decided by NCLT, Not Arbitrator: Kerala High Court
Case Title : Purushothaman Thitta v. Pothan Rajan and Anr
Case Number: OP(C) No. 2308 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(KER) 82
On 1 June 2026, the Kerala High Court held that disputes involving corporate restructuring and division of company assets fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) and are non-arbitrable.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Easwaran S allowed the petition challenging an arbitral ruling that had rejected a jurisdictional objection under Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. He observed:
“Albeit, this Courts finds that the dispute before the arbitrator qua the companies is essentially an intra- company dispute. Pertinently, the company is not a signatory to the MOU, whereas it is between two brothers. Moreover, the presences of a specialized statutory form like National Company Tribunal which is given exclusive power to adjudicate on the dispute touching upon the structure of the company and the rights of a minority shareholder, is a clear indication that the subject matter of the dispute is non- arbitrable.”
Case Title: Hashim v Union of India and Ors.
Case Number: WP(C) 17334/ 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(KER) 103
The Kerala High Court has recently stayed an order of the Ernakulam District Collector and directed that arbitration proceedings concerning compensation for land acquired for the widening of National Highway 66 remain in abeyance.
The court found that the landowner had made out a strong prima facie case in challenging the Collector's continuation as arbitrator in the dispute.
Justice C. Jayachandran passed the interim order while considering a writ petition filed by a landowner whose compensation claim had been referred to arbitration after the acquisition of property for the National Highway project.
“Inasmuch as the petitioner has got a strong prima facie case, coupled with the principles of balance of convenience, this Court is of the opinion that Ext.P4 Order is liable to be stayed,” the Court held.
Case Title : Ambica Praveesh v. BMH Care Hospital Ltd
Case Number : AR No. 12 of 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(KER) 102
The Kerala High Court on Friday observed that a presiding arbitrator has no noteworthy superior role over the other members of an arbitral tribunal except in matters of procedure where authorised by the parties or the tribunal.
Justice S. Manu observed, “It is clear from the arbitration clause that the third arbitrator nominated by the two arbitrators chosen by the parties shall preside the tribunal. The learned counsel for the petitioner is correct in contending that the presiding arbitrator has no noteworthy superior role compared to the other arbitrators except in the matter of deciding the questions of procedure, provided he is authorized by the parties or all the members of the tribunal in that regard.”
Allahabad High Court
Case Title: Genebio Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. through Director, Arun Kumar Srivastava Versus Paradigm Enterprises through Director Ritika Pandey and others
Case Number : Matters227 No. - 3886 of 2024
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (ALL) 10
The Allahabad High Court has recently reiterated that a challenge to an arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act does not become not maintainable merely because it is not accompanied by a separate application seeking condonation of delay. The court said what matters is whether the party has, in the petition itself, set out reasons for the delay or sought the benefit of limitation law, and whether the court has applied its mind to those pleadings. Justice Jaspreet Singh, however, relying on earlier precedents, made it clear that courts cannot mechanically excuse delay simply because a petition is filed within the additional 30-day window allowed under the law.
“It is not merely because the application under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 was not accompanied by a separate application seeking condonation of delay, per se would make the application not maintainable without considering as to whether in the pleading any ground was set out for condonation of delay or for grant of benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act or any prayer was made to the aforesaid effect or not,” the court said.
Case Title: Suryadev Pathak Versus Union of India and 4 others
Case Number: Writ C No. - 28215 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz (ALL) 3
The Allahabad High Court has held that it lacks jurisdiction to extend the mandate of an arbitrator under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, on the ground that it does not exercise ordinary original civil jurisdiction and therefore does not fall within the definition of “Court” under Section 2(1)(e)(i) of the Act. Consequently, the High Court ruled that it cannot entertain writ petitions seeking time-bound or expeditious disposal of arbitral proceedings when a specific statutory remedy lies before the competent civil court.
The bench of Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Kunal Ravi Singh held “The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad does not exercise ordinary original civil jurisdiction and therefore does not fall within the definition of "Court" under Section 2(1)(e)(i) of the Arbitration Act, 1996. Consequently, this Court cannot exercise jurisdiction under Section 29A of the Arbitration Act, 1996.”
The Court held that writ petition before the High Court for expeditious disposal of an arbitration was barred in lieu of the alternate remedy under Section 29A(4) to approach the Civil Court.
“The existence of a specific statutory remedy under Section 29A(4) before the competent civil court bars the maintainability of writ petitions seeking mandamus for expeditious disposal of arbitration proceedings, especially when the statutory period has expired.”
Sole Arbitrator May Be Appointed To Reduce Costs Despite Three-Member Clause: Allahabad High Court
Case Title: Progressive Construction Company Thru.Partner/ Authorized Signatory Badelal v Versus Engineer-In-Chief And H.O.D., Pwd And Others
Case Number: CIVIL MISC. ARBITRATION APPLICATION No. - 19 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (ALL) 18
The Allahabad High Court has held that where an arbitration clause provides for a three-member tribunal but the parties fail to appoint arbitrators, the Court can appoint a sole arbitrator if a party seeks it to reduce costs.
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".
Case Title: Sri Rajendra Prasad Singh v. M/s Arch Construction Thru. Partner Sri Santosh Kumar Singh and 3 Others
Case Number : WRIT - C No. - 10703 of 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (ALL) 36
The Allahabad High Court on 27 April held that even where a Court appoints an Arbitral Tribunal under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 without examining limitation, the Arbitral Tribunal can still decide such objections under Section 16.
A Bench of Justices Shekhar B. Saraf and Abdesh Kumar Chaudhary held that Arbitral Tribunals retain full authority to decide their own jurisdiction, including limitation, even after a Section 11 reference, and set aside the Tribunal's view that it lacked such power. It noted:
“even if the High Court referred the matter to arbitration, the Arbitral Tribunal under Section 16 of the Act had the power to decide on its own jurisdiction. The Arbitral Tribunal is the forum for deciding all issues that the parties may raise including the issues of limitation that may have not been raised by the parties at the time of order passed by the High Court under Section 11 of the Act.”
Arbitral Award Executable Against SPV Members Not Party To Proceedings: Allahabad High Court
Case Title : M/S U.P. Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam, Ltd. Thru. Authorised Representative Pradeep Soni And Others v. M/S Adani Enterprises Ltd., Ahemdabad Thru. Managing Director Ahemdabad And Another
Case Number : MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. 6089 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (ALL) 34
The Allahabad High Court on 9 April held that members of a special purpose vehicle (SPV) fall within the expression “persons claiming under them” under Section 35 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and allowed arbitral awards to be executed against them even if they were not parties to the arbitration proceedings. Justice Pankaj Bhatia delivered the ruling while dismissing petitions challenging execution proceedings initiated by Adani Enterprises Ltd. against shareholders of an SPV that had contracted with Adani. He held:
“a normal decree passed by a competent Court of law against a company can be executed only against the judgment debtor company and not against its shareholders/directors unless ingredients of lifting the corporate veil is established, however, an award passed under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act can be executed against the 'party' or any 'person claiming under them.”
Case Title : Sushil Kumar Prajapati v. Union of India and 3 others
Case Number: WRIT - C No. - 26448 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (ALL) 39
The Allahabad High Court on 5 May held that a writ petition challenging an ex parte arbitral award is maintainable in exceptional circumstances involving lack of jurisdiction or violation of principles of natural justice.
A Division Bench of Justices Ajit Kumar and Indrajeet Shukla allowed the writ petition filed by Sushil Kumar Prajapati the proprietor of Laxmi Medical Agency against the Central Hospital, North Central Railway, Allahabad, and set aside an ex parte arbitral award passed in Kolkata after holding that the arbitrator had unilaterally shifted the agreed seat of arbitration from Allahabad to Kolkata without the parties' consent. It observed:
“In exceptional circumstances where the proceedings are vitiated for lack of jurisdiction or a palpable breach of natural justice, this Court must not remain a silent spectator. To hold otherwise would be to allow a procedural technicality to strangle the substantive rights of the parties in the face of manifest arbitrariness.”
Allahabad High Court Refuses Writ Against MSME Council Award, Directs Recourse Under Section 34
Case Title: Shri Krishna Nutriton India Pvt Ltd Versus The Micro Small and Medium Enterprises and another
Case Number: WRIT - C No. - 8895 of 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (ALL) 38
The Allahabad High Court on 30 April reiterated that a writ petition challenging an ex-parte award passed by the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Facilitation Council under Section 18 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 is not maintainable when the statute provides an alternative remedy under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
A Division Bench of Justices Saral Srivastava and Garima Prashad dismissed the writ petition filed by Shri Krishna Nutrition India Pvt. Ltd. against an ex-parte award passed by the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Facilitation Council, Kanpur directing the company to pay Rs. 24 lakhs. The judges observed:
“Proceedings under Section 18 of the 2006 Act culminate in an arbitral award and the statute itself provides a remedy under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.”
Dealer's Counter-Offer Not Consent: Allahabad HC Sets Aside HPCL Arbitrator Appointment
Case Title : Laxmi Kant Pandey v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.
Case Number : Arbitration Appeal No. 53 of 2023
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (ALL) 37
The Allahabad High Court has set aside an arbitral award after finding that Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. could not validly appoint its own officer as arbitrator without a clear written waiver from the dealer after the dispute had arisen.
"Hence, the appellant cannot be non-suited for not taking a precise ground in its petition under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 as the ground of illegibility could be raised at any stage and having done so and examined by this Court, it is found that the appointment of the Arbitrator was not valid nor the waiver as per Section 12(5) of the Act was express, thus rendering the appointment legally invalid and even the award made by such an Arbitrator is rendered invalid. Thus, the second issue is answered accordingly,” the court observed.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Jaspreet Singh held that the law requires a clear and express written waiver before an otherwise ineligible arbitrator can be appointed, and such waiver was missing in the present case.
Arbitral Seat Cannot Be Shifted Merely Due To Convenience Venue: Allahabad High Court
Case Title: Bb Coachtech India Private Limited v. The Presiding Officer, Commercial Court and another
Case Number: MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 6463 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (ALL) 49
The Allahabad High Court on 27 May held that the jurisdictional seat of arbitration cannot be altered merely because arbitral proceedings were conducted at another venue for convenience, once the seat has been contractually designated.
Justice Piyush Agrawal allowed the petition by Bb Coachtech India Private Limited and set aside the order of the Commercial Court, Kanpur, remanding the matter for fresh consideration. He observed:
“the hearing of the arbitration may have been taken place at Prayagraj, a different venue & seat from Kanpur but at the best, it can be said to be convenient place for the parties. In other words, the Commercial Court ought to have appreciated that Kanpur Nagar was consciously designated as the seat of arbitration. Once such a designation was made, the legal consequence that inexorably follows is that courts at Kanpur alone would have jurisdiction over the arbitral proceeding. The mere fact that arbitral tribunal for reasons of convenience, conducted proceeding at Prayagraj, it does not and cannot, alter the jurisdictional seat of arbitration of Kanpur Nagar.”
Section 11 Arbitration Orders Not Reviewable, Article 215 Powers Limited: Allahabad High Court
Case Title :Trans Lighting Ltd. v Madhyanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam
Case Number: CIVIL MISC. ARBITRATION APPLICATION No. - 91 of 2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (ALL) 47
On 14 May, the Allahabad High Court held that it cannot review an order passed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, while exercising its statutory jurisdiction. However, as a Court of Record, it may invoke its inherent powers under Article 215 of the Constitution to correct the record or remedy a grave error that may otherwise result in a failure of justice.
A Bench of Justice Jaspreet Singh dismissed an application seeking recall of an earlier order constituting a three-member arbitral tribunal despite a contractual stipulation providing for a sole arbitrator, holding that the case did not meet the high threshold required for exercise of the Court's inherent powers.
“It may be correct to say that the High Court while exercising its powers under Section 11 of the Act of 1996 may not review its orders but the inherent powers invested in the High Court or the Supreme Court by virtue of being a Court of Record can be invoked to correct the record or undo a serious error which if remained unaddressed, may occasion failure of justice.”
Case Title: Indian Oil Corporation Limited v M/s Kumar Filing Station
Case Number : Appeal under Section 37 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 – 41 of 2023
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (ALL) 46
The Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court on 15 May held that an arbitral tribunal cannot restore a dealership agreement that either party can terminate by notice. Such a contract is determinable in nature and Section 14 of the Specific Relief Act bars its specific enforcement.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Jaspreet Singh allowed Indian Oil Corporation Limited's (IOCL) appeal, set aside the arbitral award directing restoration of the dealership, and quashed the Commercial Court's order that had upheld the award. The judges held:
“In view of the above fact situation, the award passed by the Arbitral Tribunal as upheld by the Commercial Court is ex-facie and patently illegal being against the provisions of the Specific Relief Act as well as the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.”
Himachal Pradesh High Court
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.
Case Title : J.K. Exim Private Limited v. Director of Women and Child Development, H.P. & Anr.
Case Number : Arbitration Appeal No. 13 of 2020
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (HP) 13
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has set aside a Single Judge's order modifying an arbitral award in a dispute over the supply of Anganwadi kits, holding that the judgment was incomprehensible and lacked clear reasoning. The court remanded the matter for fresh adjudication. The Bench of Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Justice Bipin Chander Negi emphasised the need for clarity in judicial writing.
It observed, “A judgment culminates in a conclusion. Its contents represent the basis for the conclusion. All conclusions should be supported by reasoning duly recorded. The reasons in the judgment should be intelligible and logical. The purpose of judicial writing is not to confuse or confound. The judgment must make sense to those whose lives and affairs are affected by the outcome of the case. Judgment of the High Court serve as precedents to guide future benches. This Court in the present appeal and the counsels representing the respective parties have found it difficult to navigate through the incomprehensible language in the impugned judgment.”
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."
Case Title : State of HP and Another v. M/s Garg Sons Estate Promotors Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : Arb. Appeal No. 451 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(HP)21
The Himachal Pradesh High Court on 22 May held that Courts must adopt a common-sense approach while considering delay condonation applications filed by government authorities under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and that bureaucratic decision-making processes may constitute sufficient cause where the explanation is bona fide.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Gurmeet Singh Sandhawalia and Justice Bipin Chander Negi allowed the appeal filed by the State of Himachal Pradesh and another authority, set aside the Single Judge's order refusing to condone delay, and restored the State's Section 34 petition challenging the arbitral award for adjudication on merits. The judges observed:
“Besides 'Every day's delay must be explained' does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made. The doctrine must be applied in a rational common sense pragmatic manner. The explanation offered in the case at hand, though involving bureaucratic procedures, when examined in the aforesaid perspective reflects a genuine and bona fide cause for the delay in filing the objections under section 34 of the act.”
Case Title : Naveen Auto Store Sole Proprietary v. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. & Ors.
Case Number: Arb. Case No. 814 of 2024
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(HP)22
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has granted interim relief to Naveen Auto Store Sole Proprietary, a Mahindra-authorised service centre operator, and directed Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. to restore the dealer management system (DMS) access of its workshop.
The Court held that the petitioner had made out a prima facie case for interim protection pending arbitration proceedings.
Justice Romesh Verma observed, “The petitioner has been able to demonstrate on record that huge investment including purchases of various tools, various investments, expenditure has been made in the service station at the askance of the respondents. The agreements, which were entered between the parties from time to time, are clear and specific, therefore, the petitioner has been able to make out a prima facie case for the grant interim relief in his favour."
Case Title : Rajender Kumar v. National Highway Authority of India and Anr
Case Number: Arbitration Case No. 216 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(HP) 17
The Himachal Pradesh High Court on 20 May held that an application under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking extension of time is maintainable even after expiry of the arbitral mandate, but such extension can be granted only on proof of “sufficient cause”, consistent with the legislative objective of expeditious arbitral resolution.
A Bench of Justice Virender Singh dismissed a plea filed by landowner Rajender Kumar seeking extension of time to complete arbitral proceedings arising from acquisition of land for widening of National Highway-21. He held:
“....if the application is allowed, merely on the asking of the party, then, there would be no end to the litigation and the object of Section 29A of the Act would be defeated by allowing the application, which is filed after a long gap of time.”
Case Title: L&T Himachal Hydro Power Limited v. Government of Himachal Pradesh and Another
Case Number : CMP No. 27640 of 2025 in CWP No. 1816 of 2018 and CMP No. 27641 of 2025 in CWP No. 1817 of 2018
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (HP) 15
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has refused to send the ₹84 crore dispute between L&T Himachal Hydro Power Limited and the State government over the Reoli-Dugli hydropower project to arbitration.
The court held that the State waited too long to seek that remedy after contesting the writ petitions for more than seven years.
“As already noticed above, after the amendment carried out in the Act in the year 2015, if the party applies not later than date of submitting the first statement on the substance of the dispute, the Court has to refer the matter for arbitration in view of the arbitration agreement. However, in the present case, the application has been filed after seven years of submitting the first statement of substance. No doubt, the plea has been taken in the reply to the writ petition, but the same is not enough, to get the matter referred for arbitration.." Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj held.
Case Title: The Learning Curve Educational Trust v. The Indian Institute of Technology
Case Number: CARBC No. 29 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (HP) 14
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has refused interim relief to The Learning Curve Educational Trust, which sought a stay on the termination of its agreement to run a campus school at IIT Mandi.
The court held that, in the facts of the case, a party that failed to challenge a termination notice for nearly two years could not seek protection under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Justice Ajay Mohan Goel observed that the Trust had “slept over the matter” and failed to satisfy the settled requirements for interim relief, including a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss.
"In light of the fact that the petitioner did not take steps to get rid of the Notice of termination dated 01.05.2024, for almost two years, now when the period of two years is coming to an end, by no stretch of imagination the petitioner can plead that it has a prima facie case in its favour.,” the court said.
Consent Under Section 29A(3) Can Be Inferred From Conduct Of Parties: Himachal Pradesh High Court
Case Title: Meenakshi v NHAI
Case Number :Arb. Appeal 3 and 7 of 2022
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(HP)23
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that Section 29A(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 does not require parties to give written consent for extending the time limit to make an arbitral award. Consent may be inferred from the conduct of the parties.
A Bench of Justice Virender Singh allowed the appeals filed by landowners Meenakshi and Chaman Lal, set aside the District Judge's order annulling the arbitral award, and remanded the matter for consideration of the Section 34 challenge on merits. The judges held:
“The learned District Judge, in the judgment impugned herein, has adopted a hyper-technical approach while holding that 'consent', as used by the Legislature, in its wisdom, in Section 29A(3) of the Act has to be express and after being aware of the statutory provision.”
Case Title : Mohan Singh (deceased) through LRs. v. NHAI & Another
Case Number : CMPMO No. 724 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(HP)24
On 3 June, the Himachal Pradesh High Court held that when a statute requires an authority or arbitrator to perform an act within a prescribed time, the obligation lies on that authority to comply with the statutory timeline and complete the task accordingly.
A Single Bench of Justice Romesh Verma, while hearing Mohan Singh (deceased) through legal representatives v. National Highways Authority of India and others, directed the Divisional Commissioner-cum-Arbitrator, Shimla, to conclude the arbitration proceedings and pass the award on or before 4 December 2026. He observed:
“This Court is of the view that when a statute envisages an authority, be it an Arbitrator, to do a particular act in a particular manner and in a prescribed time schedule, then the onus is upon the said authority/Arbitrator to perform the task entrusted to it within the time schedule prescribed in the statute.”
Chhattisgarh High Court
Case Title : State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. v. Gilcon Project Service Ltd. JV Scapes Associates
Case Number : ARBA Nos. 36, 37, 39, 40, 41 & 42 of 2020
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (CHH) 7
The Chhattisgarh High Court on 25 March dismissed the State of Chhattisgarh's appeals and upheld the Commercial Court's order partly setting aside the arbitral award while granting limited relief to Gilcon Project Service Ltd. JV Scapes Associates. A Bench of Justice Rajani Dubey and Justice Radhakishan Agrawal reiterated that courts exercising jurisdiction under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 cannot reassess evidence or substitute the arbitrator's findings unless the award suffers from patent illegality or violates public policy. The Court observed: “The learned Commercial Court minutely appreciated all grounds of application filed by the State and Gilcon Project and rightly passed the order and rightly rejected the applications of the State sans merit and rightly allowed the claim No.1 of the Gilcon Project, which is in respect of admitted amount withheld by the State. Thus, we do not find any illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the learned Commercial Court”.
Chhattisgarh High Court Refuses To Condone 110-Day Delay In Arbitration Appeal Against PwC
Case Title : Chhattisgarh State Agriculture Marketing Board versus Price Water House Coopers Pvt. Ltd
Case Number : ARBA No. 8 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (CHH) 6
The Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed an arbitration appeal filed by the Chhattisgarh State Agriculture Marketing Board against Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd., holding that the Board failed to justify a delay of 110 days in filing the appeal within the time limit prescribed under the Commercial Courts Act. A division bench of Justices Rajani Dubey and Radhakishan Agrawal held that no sufficient cause was shown to justify the delay beyond the prescribed limitation period under the Commercial Courts Act. “No satisfactory or reasonable explanation has been furnished for such delay, and the grounds stated do not constitute “sufficient cause.” The cumulative delay of 110 days, without sufficient cause, falls far outside the permissible bounds of delay under The Commercial Courts Act, 2015. Therefore, the application for condonation of delay is without any merit.”, the court observed.
Case Title : Chief General Manager Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and Ors. Versus M/s Talat Construction Kharasia Naka, Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh
Case Number : ARBA No. 40 of 2018
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (CHH) 9
The Chhattisgarh High Court has recently set aside an arbitral award against Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL), holding that the arbitrator granted interest despite a clear contractual prohibition and awarded loss of profit without any supporting evidence, rendering the award legally unsustainable. Justice Bibhu Datta Guru found that the arbitrator had acted contrary to the terms agreed between the parties. The court said, “A perusal of the aforesaid clause would clearly reveal that the payment of interest on the Security Deposit was expressly barred. In spite of such a stipulation, the learned Arbitrator has proceeded to award interest in favour of the claimant, which is clearly contrary to the contractual provisions governing the parties. In the present case, the award of interest being in the teeth of the contractual bar cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside."
Dispute Does Not Become Commercial Just Because It Is An Arbitration Matter: Chhattisgarh High Court
Case Title : Anand Khedia & Ors. v. Commissioner-cum-Arbitrator & Ors.
Case Number : Arbitration Appeal No. 26 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (CHH) 11
The Chhattisgarh High Court has recently held that a dispute does not become a “commercial dispute” merely because it arises out of arbitration, setting aside the transfer of a land acquisition compensation challenge to a Commercial Court.
A Division Bench of Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal and Justice Sachin Singh Rajput observed that "A dispute will not become a commercial dispute merely because it is an arbitration matter and and jurisdiction in respect with an arbitration matter has been dealt with separately under Sections 10 and 15(2) of the Act of 2015. Every application filed under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 cannot be transferred to the Commercial Court under Section 15(2) of the Act of 2015 and only such applications will be required to be transferred, which are relating to a commercial dispute of a specified value covered under Section 2(1)(c) read with Section 2(i) of the Act of 2015."
Commercial Court Cannot Hear Challenge To Railways Land Acquisition Award: Chhattisgarh High Court
Case Title: Sagarmal Agarwal v Deputy Chief Engineer, South Eastern Central Railway Bilaspur
Case Number : ARBA No. 28 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (CHH) 14
On 14 May, the Chhattisgarh High Court held that disputes arising from land acquisition proceedings under the Railways Act do not fall within the definition of a “commercial dispute” under Section 2(1)(c) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, and therefore cannot be adjudicated by a Commercial Court.
A Division Bench of Justices Parth Prateem Sahu and Sachin Singh Rajput allowed an appeal filed by Sagarmal Agrawal, set aside an order of the Commercial Court, Bilaspur, holding that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain a challenge to an arbitral award arising out of land acquisition proceedings. The judges held:
“Since the 2nd District Judge (Commercial Court), District Judge Level District Bilaspur (C.G.) is having no jurisdiction to entertain the application under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 arising out of the land acquisition proceedings being not covered under commercial dispute as defined under Section 2 (c) of the Act of 2015, the Commercial Court erred in entertaining the proceeding filed by the appellant before it.”
BOCW Cess Dispute Not Arbitrable, Must Be Decided Under Statutory Mechanism: Chhattisgarh High Court
Case Title : S K Samanta Co. (P) Ltd. v. South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd.
Case Number : ARBR 47 and 48 of 2024 and ARBR 4 and 6 of 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (CHH) 15
The Chhattisgarh High Court on 13 May, refused to appoint an arbitrator in a dispute between SK Samanta and Co. (P) Ltd. and South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. (SECL), holding that issues relating to statutory cess under the Building and Other Construction Workers' Welfare Cess Act, 1996 (BOCW Cess Act) are non-arbitrable.
Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha held that the dispute arose from statutory levy and not a purely contractual arrangement, and therefore did not fall within the scope of arbitration under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. He held:
“The principal issue raised by the applicant is with regard to the applicability or otherwise of the BOCW Act and the consequential liability towards deduction of cess. Such determination necessarily involves examination of statutory provisions, the scope of exclusion contained in Section 2(1)(d) of the BOCW Act, and the authority of the State machinery under the enactment… In the considered opinion of this Court, the dispute in question falls within the domain of the statutory framework governing levy and collection of cess and cannot be said to be a pure contractual dispute amenable to arbitration.”
Rajasthan High Court
When Can Arbitral Awards Be Set Aside? Rajasthan High Court Lays Down Principles To Check Perversity
Case Title : State of Rajasthan & Ors. v Shri I.J. Mamtani & Anr.
Case Number : D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2530/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (RAJ) 12
While underscoring that the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was enacted to ensure effective and expeditious resolution of disputes, the Rajasthan High Court expressed concern over the increasing trend of arbitral awards being challenged “as if an appeal has been filed.” A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Shubha Mehta dismissed an appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan against an order of the Commercial Court which had rejected its objections under Section 34 of the Act and affirmed the arbitral award.
“The Act of 1996 essentially was passed with the purpose of deciding disputes in an effective and quick manner. However, we see and note that in almost all the cases where arbitration awards are passed, the same are taken up by way of raising objections under Section 34 of the Act of 1996, as if an appeal has been filed..”, it held.
Case Title : HCL Infosystems Limited v. Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited & Ors. C/W Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited & Ors. v. HCL Infosystems Limited
Case Number: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16033/2024 C/w S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7066/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(RAJ) 24
The Rajasthan High Court on 27 May held that arbitral proceedings must remain aligned with the statutory objective of expedition, efficiency, and cost-effectiveness under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and that procedural delay cannot justify repeated extensions of an arbitral tribunal's mandate under Section 29A.
Justice Sameer Jain, invoking former Chief Justice of India Justice P.N. Bhagwati's observation that “Procedure is but a means to an end, not an end in itself”, partly allowed petitions filed by the Rajasthan DISCOMs and modified the Commercial Court's order that had extended the mandate of a three-member arbitral tribunal in a Rs. 528 crore dispute with HCL Infosystems Limited. He held:
“When factors are viewed cumulatively, a clear picture emerges, as that the high per-session fee structure, when combined with discontinuous hearings, has escalated costs disproportionately; the change in venue has added avoidable financial and logistical strain; the procedural laxity has prolonged the proceedings beyond reasonable limits. These elements, taken together, have undermined the foundational principles of arbitration, namely, efficiency, economy, and expedition, and have resulted in manifest prejudice to the parties, particularly in terms of financial burden and delayed adjudication.”
Case Title : Legal Representatives of Late Shree Ramesh Chandra Patel v. City Pulse Enterprise Private Limited
Case Number: D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1277/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(RAJ) 23
The Rajasthan High Court on 22 May held that landlord–tenant disputes governed by the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 are non-arbitrable and fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Rent Tribunal, even where the lease agreement contains an arbitration clause.
A Division Bench of Justices Arun Monga and Sandeep Shah, however, set aside the Commercial Court's order and restored the arbitral award in favour of the legal representatives of late Ramesh Chandra Patel against City Pulse Enterprise Private Limited on procedural grounds relating to Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. It observed:
“under the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001, a tenant enjoys certain statutory protections and can be evicted only on the grounds specified under Section 9 of the Act of 2001 and not otherwise. This, coupled with the language employed under Sections 18 and 29 of the Act of 2001, leaves no manner of doubt that insofar as disputes between landlord and tenant are concerned, including matters ancillary thereto, neither the Civil Court nor any other authority would have jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the same and such disputes are liable to be decided exclusively by the Rent Tribunal in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 2001. Thus, the dispute in question was liable to be adjudicated only by the Rent Tribunal and was not arbitrable.”
Case Title: Parsa Kente Collieries Limited v. Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Limited
Case Number : D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2007/2023
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(RAJ) 21
The Rajasthan High Court has effectively restored arbitral awards in favour of Parsa Kente Collieries Ltd. in its dispute with Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd. The dispute concerned reimbursement of additional costs incurred after the Supreme Court's cancellation of coal block allocations and the subsequent continuation of the mining arrangement.
In 2014, the Supreme Court had quashing coal block allocations across India, holding them arbitrary and illegal.
A Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Bipin Gupta held that the Commercial Court had exceeded the narrow scope of judicial scrutiny over arbitral awards. It said the Commercial Court reassessed evidence and substituted its own interpretation of the contract for that of the arbitrator.
"if we examine the judgement passed by the learned Commercial Court, we find that the learned Commercial Court has examined the award passed by the Arbitrator, as if he was re-examining all the facts and exercising power of an appeal, considering the limited scope available under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 which requires only to see whether the award was induced or affected by fraud or corruption or whether it was in violation of Section 75 or Section 81 of the Act or whether it was in contravention of the fundamental policy of the Indian law or it is in conflict with the most basic notions of morality or justice, that it could be interfered with, is found to be completely absent”
Section 9 Relief Cannot Restore Ousted LLP Partner Or Confer Final Control: Rajasthan High Court
Case Title: M/s Srasti Liquor Bottling LLP & Ors. v. Mrs. Sita Rajesh Varma
Case Number: D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2724/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (RAJ) 16
The Rajasthan High Court on 30 April held that a Commercial Court exercising interim powers under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 cannot grant relief that effectively restores a removed partner or confers operational control over an LLP, as such directions would amount to granting final relief prior to the commencement of arbitration.
A Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Shubha Mehta set aside the Jaipur Commercial Court's directions that had restored Sita Rajesh Varma as a designated partner and ordered joint operation of LLP bank accounts along with ROC compliance directions in an internal LLP dispute. It observed:
“It is the arbitrator who will decide all inter se disputes and it is the arbitrator who will take decisions regarding the disputes and how to settle them. The commercial court while exercising power under Section 9 of the Act of 1996 would not have the power to allow one of the parties to initiate proceedings for dissolution of the firm nor it can direct the Respondent to interfere with the affairs of the LLP as it only has 45% of the shares while the Appellant possesses majority shares. We say so as the powers under Section 9 of the Act of 1996 are only to the extent of passing of interim order which cannot be of final nature.”
Case Title: Union of India v V.S. Saini
Case Number: S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2109/2007, S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2110/2007
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(RAJ) 27
The Rajasthan High Court has held that where a contract contains an ambiguous term and the arbitrator adopts a plausible interpretation of that term, such interpretation does not amount to misconduct under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act, 1940.
Justice Sandeep Shah upheld an arbitral award passed nearly two decades ago against the Union of India (UOI) in a dispute arising from fencing work along the Indo-Pak border and affirmed the arbitral award as well as the order of the District Judge, Sri Ganganagar refusing to set it aside. He held:
“When the terms of the contract are capable of more than one interpretation and the learned Arbitrator has adopted one of the possible and plausible interpretations, the same by itself cannot be a ground for interference with the award in question under Section 30 of the Act of 1940.”
Punjab & Haryana High Court
Punjab and Haryana High Court Sets Aside ₹5.18 Crore Arbitral Award Against Aditya Birla Fashion
Case Title : Aditya Birla Fashion and Retail Limited v. Dayanand
Case Number : FAO-CARB No. 39 of 2025 (O&M)
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (PNH) 9
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has set aside a Rs. 5.18 crore arbitral award passed in favour of landlord Dayanand and against Aditya Birla Fashion and Retail Limited in a dispute arising from a 2018 warehouse fire, holding that the award was contrary to the express terms of the lease deed and suffered from patent illegality.
“By awarding sum to compensate the losses arising from under valuation of the property, for the purposes of insurance, the Arbitrator has virtually re-written the contract, which is not permissible. This aspect has been completely omitted from consideration by the Arbitrator even though the appellant had specifically asserted that securing the leased-out premise against the incident of fire by way of insurance was the exclusive obligation of the claimant.” a Division Bench of Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Rohit Kapoor held.
The bench further noted that the damages awarded were not supported by proof of actual expenditure beyond what was assessed by the insurer. Reliance on valuation material and a Chartered Accountant's certificate was insufficient.
Case Title : Aggarwal Sons v. Union of India and Others
Case Number : CR-7890-2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (PNH) 8
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has set aside a condition imposed by an executing court that required an award-holder to furnish a bank guarantee to obtain release of an arbitral award amount. The court held that no such condition can be imposed by the executing court in the absence of any interim stay. A bench of Justice Jasgurpreet Singh Puri held that once objections to an arbitral award are dismissed and no interim order is granted in appeal, the executing court is bound to execute the award in full.
“In the absence of any interim order in appeal, the learned Executing Court is required to execute the decree without imposing any such onerous condition,” the Court observed.
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.”
Case Title : Sunil Garg v. Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board
Case Number : ARB-35-2026 (O&M)
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (PNH) 13
The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently dismissed an arbitration petition seeking appointment of an arbitrator while also seeking termination of the mandate of a sole arbitrator already conducting the proceedings.
A Single Bench of Justice Jasgurpreet Singh Puri imposed costs of Rs 25,000 on the petitioner and observed,
“It is very surprising as to how an application under Section 11 of the Act would be maintainable before this Court and a specific query in this regard was put to the learned counsel for the applicant, to which he could not answer. Similarly, it is also very surprising as to how an application under Sections 14 and 15 of the Act seeking termination of the mandate of an Arbitrator would be maintainable before this Court and that too read with Section 11 of the Act because such an application, if any, has to be filed before the learned Court as defined under Section 2(1)(e) of the Act and therefore, the applicant cannot seek substitution of the Arbitrator from this Court which is not the Court as defined under Section 2(1)(e) of the Act.”
Case Title : VCA Estate Private Limited v. Baldev Raj and others
Case Number : ARB-536-2025 (O&M)
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (PNH) 24
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that a clause allowing a civil suit for specific performance does not override a clear arbitration clause between parties, appointing an arbitrator to resolve a land dispute after rejecting objections of coercion and invalidity. Justice Jasgurpreet Singh Puri said, “When in an agreement, there exists a specific clause pertaining to arbitration, which remains undisputed then the mere fact that there is some other clause providing entitlement to file a suit for specific performance cannot oust the relevance and operation of the arbitration clause."
Case Title : Yashpreet Singh And Ors. Versus Union Of India And Another
Case Number : CR-3884-2023 (O&M) and other connected cases
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (PNH) 23
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that courts at Faridkot would have jurisdiction to entertain challenges to arbitral awards arising out of the NH-15 Amritsar–Bathinda project, and not courts at Bathinda, as the arbitral proceedings were conducted and the awards were passed at Faridkot. A coram of Justice Jasgurpreet Singh Puri observed that "Although the present cases pertain to statutory arbitration but it is an admitted fact that the arbitration has been conducted at Faridkot with the participation of all the parties and the award has been passed at Faridkot and therefore, while applying the principles of law laid down as aforestated, the venue and the seat of the arbitration is at Faridkot.” and once the seat is so determined, the courts at that place would have jurisdiction.
Case Title : Rayat Educational and Research Trust (Regd.) vs Punjab Skill Development Mission
Case Number : ARB-527-2025 (O&M)
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (PNH) 20
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that merely labelling a clause as “Arbitration and Applicable Laws” does not make it an arbitration agreement, refusing to appoint an arbitrator where the clause itself did not provide for the reference of disputes to arbitration.
“A perusal of the aforesaid Clause 8.1 would show that although the heading of the Clause is stated as “Arbitration and Applicable Laws” but the substance of the Clause provides that any dispute arising in connection with the MOU, which cannot be resolved amicably, shall be referred to the Empowered Committee for DDUGKY in the Ministry of Rural Development, Government of India. Therefore, in the Clause itself, there is no such reference made to arbitration or to follow any arbitration process and the mere fact that the heading of the Clause states “Arbitration and Applicable Laws” would not mean that the same can be given the meaning of an arbitration clause,” the court observed.
'May Refer To Arbitration' Clause Valid Where Agreement Shows Clear Intent: Punjab and Haryana HC
Case Title : Realsta Infratech Pvt Ltd v. M/s Pace Stock Broking Services Pvt Ltd
Case Number : ARB-758-2025 (O&M)
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (PNH) 22
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that a clause in a Leave and License Agreement between Realsta Infratech Pvt Ltd and Pace Stock Broking Services Pvt Ltd constituted a valid arbitration clause, despite using the expression “may refer to arbitration," as the provision, read as a whole, reflected a clear intention to arbitrate upon failure of amicable settlement. Justice Jasgurpreet Singh Puri appointed former Delhi High Court judge Justice Talwant Singh as the sole arbitrator to decide the disputes between the parties.
The court observed, “In the first part, the parties are to amicably resolve the dispute by way of negotiation and in case this is not done, then the party raising a dispute may refer the dispute for resolution by arbitration and thereafter in the second part, the procedure and seat of arbitration have been prescribed. The aforesaid continuity in two phases itself clearly suggests the intention of the parties that in default of settlement through amicable negotiation, the parties may refer the dispute for resolution through arbitration.”
Arbitration Clause In Purchase Orders Enough to Appoint Arbitrator: Punjab & Haryana High Court
Case Title : Aditya Birla Real Estate Limited v. Orient Craft Limited
Case Number : ARB-230-2023(O&M)
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (PNH) 18
The Punjab and Haryana High Court on 19 March, held that an arbitration clause in purchase orders is sufficient under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to allow appointment of an arbitrator. A Single Judge Bench of Justice Jasgurpreet Singh Puri allowed a petition by Aditya Birla Real Estate Limited and appointed Justice Ajay Tewari (Retd.) as the Sole Arbitrator in disputes arising out of 20 purchase orders issued by Orient Craft Limited for the supply of fabric. He noted:
“From a perusal of the note appended with Clause 12, it becomes very clear that there is a prima facie existence of an arbitration clause… both the essential conditions for appointment of an Arbitrator under Section 11 of the Act stand satisfied namely, prima facie existence of an arbitration clause and its invocation thereof by issuance of a notice.”
Case Title : Kuldeep Singh and Another v. Union of India and Others
Case Number: CWP No. 38070 of 2025 (O&M)
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (PNH) 25
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that denying landowners whose compensation is enhanced in arbitration under the National Highways Act the same interest benefits available to similarly placed landowners would be discriminatory and violative of Article 14.
Justice Harkesh Manuja held, “In the present case, the learned Arbitrator, by denying parity to identically placed landowners even though only with regard to the interest component of the compensation, has acted arbitrarily and in breach of Article 14, thereby offending the fundamental principles of fair procedure.”
Drawing on the Supreme Court's ruling in Union of India v. Tarsem Singh, the High Court said landowners whose property is acquired for national highway projects cannot be denied compensation benefits that are available to others in similar acquisition cases. It emphasised that compensation is not limited to the base amount and solatium but also covers interest for delayed payment.
Case Title: M/s Pahwa Impex Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s Kanuj Home Textiles Exim
Case Number: CR-5403-2025 (O&M)
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (PNH) 25
The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Friday held that a party that withdraws its challenge to an arbitral award cannot later use the High Court's supervisory jurisdiction to reopen the same dispute through a different route.
“The supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 being discretionary and equitable ought not to be exercised in favour of a litigant who has by withdrawing the objections abandoned the statutory remedy and now seeks to circumvent the consequences of that withdrawal."
Justice Jasgurpreet Singh Puri dismissed a civil revision petition filed by Pahwa Impex Pvt. Ltd. against execution proceedings initiated by Kanuj Home Textiles Exim to recover ₹84.21 lakh along with interest awarded in arbitration.
Case Title: Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited v. M/s Ganesh Rice Mills and connected matters
Case Number: CR-5847-2025 (O&M) and connected matters
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (PNH) 29
On 29 May, the Punjab and Haryana High Court held that executing courts cannot retrospectively apply the post-2015 neutrality regime under Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to refuse enforcement of arbitral awards rendered under the law prevailing at the time of the arbitrator's appointment.
A Bench of Justice Jasgurpreet Singh Puri allowed the revision petitions, set aside seven executing court orders, and directed continuation of execution proceedings. It observed:
“Once the award has been passed by an Arbitrator who was eligible to pass the same in view of the law as it stood at the time of his appointment, it is well settled that the learned Executing Court at the time of execution of such an award cannot go behind the same to apply the provisions of the 2015 Amendment Act retrospectively and is bound to execute it as it is.”
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Status Quo Ante Means Restoration, Can't Be Ordered Lightly: Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case Title: The Visakhapatnam Port Authority v. M/s. Vishwanadh Avenues (India) Private Limited, rep. by its Managing Director, Boddeti Narendra Kumar.
Case Number : COMCA Nos.29 & 30 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (APH) 10
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has recently set aside an ad interim order passed during arbitration proceedings that directed restoration of possession of leased premises, holding that such relief amounts to a mandatory injunction and cannot be granted lightly. A Division Bench of Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Maheswara Rao Kuncheam said courts must record clear and justifiable reasons before directing restoration of an earlier state of affairs. "Such orders of status quo ante‟ are not to be passed lightly and certainly not for no reasons assigned in the order.
The order must contain justifiable reasons for an ad-interim order in the nature of mandatory injunction", it said. The court rejected attempts to defend the order in question by supplying reasons during the appeal, including arguments relating to the legality of taking possession.
An order, it said, must stand or fall on the reasons recorded in it and cannot be supplemented later. The bench said it would not get into disputed questions of fact, including whether the lease terms were breached or whether possession was taken lawfully, as those issues require factual examination and are already pending before the Commercial Court. Since the impugned order recorded no reasons and did not even contain a prima facie finding to justify restoration, the High Court set aside the ad interim order.
Case Title : M/s. Sunrise & Engineering Industries vs. Hindustan Shipyard Limited & Anr. (and connected matters)
Case Number : C.M.A. No. 234 of 2025 & connected matters
Citation: 2026 LLBiz (APH) 7
The High Court of Andhra Pradesh recently set aside a Trial Court's order that had earlier quashed thirteen arbitral awards against Hindustan Shipyard Limited (HSL) and its subcontractors. The Division Bench comprising of Justices R. Raghunandan Rao and T.C.D. Sekhar, upholding the arbitral awards, stated that an arbitrator has the jurisdiction to modulate liquidated damages if they are found to be exorbitant or if the delay is attributable to both parties, and noted that “the question of application of the clause for liquidated damages, without modification, would not arise”.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court noted that liquidated damages cannot be imposed mechanically or in full once loss is quantifiable and delay is not solely attributable to the contractor. The Bench observed that where the employer admits that losses are already quantified, or where delay is shared between both parties, the arbitrator is empowered to reduce or modify the damages to ensure reasonable compensation. Conclusively, the Court held that “the learned Arbitrator cannot be termed to have exceeded his jurisdiction as such modification is permissible”.
Case Title: Zion Shipping Ltd v. Sarala Foods Pvt Ltd & Ors
Case Number: International Commercial Arbitration Appeal No. 2/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(APH) 5
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has said that a claim for demurrage, which is essentially a charge demanded for delay in loading or unloading a ship, cannot be treated as an actual money debt until an arbitral tribunal finally decides who is at fault. Because of this, the court held that such a claim cannot be secured by attaching goods under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act while arbitration is still pending.
The bench said, “It is pertinent to note that the demurrage here is liquidated damages, and liability is being contested before the arbitrator. As no pecuniary obligation arises until adjudication is complete, the claim is a mere right to sue for damages, which cannot by itself justify securing the amount through attachment because Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of the CPC cannot be used to convert an unsecured claim for damages into a secured debt. ”
Case Title : JPR Projects Versus Axis Bank
Case Number : COMMERCIAL COURT APPEAL No. 21of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(APH) 22
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has recently declined to interfere with an order granting limited interim relief against the freezing of a partnership firm's bank account, observing that the protection had already lapsed after the firm failed to initiate arbitral proceedings within 90 days. A division bench of Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Maheswara Rao Kuncheamobserved that the interim relief granted by the Special Judge for Trial and Disposal of Commercial Disputes at Visakhapatnam was expressly limited to a period of 90 days, and the appellants had invoked arbitration only after that period had expired. “From the admitted facts on record it is evident that within a period of 90 days the arbitral proceedings were not commenced in terms of Sub-section (2) of Section 9 of the Act 1996. Notice under Section 21, sent to the respondents, is dated 07.11.2025 which is after the expiry of the period of 90 days from the date of the impugned Order.”
Case Title : Government of Andhra Pradesh v. M/s SCLCR 18G Joint Venture & Ors.
Case Number : CMA No.1141 of 2018; CRP No.6787 of 2018
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(APH) 24
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has recently dismissed an appeal challenging a Rs 199.96-crore arbitral award arising out of the Pulichintala Dam project dispute after the state failed to correct the description of the party from “Government of Andhra Pradesh” to “State of Andhra Pradesh” despite being given an opportunity to do so.
A Division Bench of Justice R. Raghunandan Rao and Justice T.C.D. Sekhar, in a judgment dated March 6, 2026, held that under Article 300 of the Constitution and Section 79 of the Civil Procedure Code, a State government must sue or be sued in the name of the “State of Andhra Pradesh”.
“This Article, in the light of the above judgments, would have to be understood to mean that "the Government of Andhra Pradesh" while being sued or suing, should be described as the "State of Andhra Pradesh". Put another way, the party to the litigation is actually the Government of Andhra Pradesh but the said Government of State is to be described as the State of Andhra Pradesh. Any technical defect, of not naming the appropriate party, in a case where an employee of the State is arrayed as a party instead of the State, can be corrected at the primary level and for such matters can be remanded to the primary level", it said.
Case Title : Katta Srinivasu v. M/s IKF Finance Limited
Case Number : Civil Revision Petition Nos. 2345 of 2022 & 419 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(APH) 32
The Andhra Pradesh High Court on 10 April reiterated that unilateral appointment of a sole arbitrator by a finance company violated the principle of equal treatment under Article 14 of the Constitution, and set aside execution proceedings arising from an arbitral award passed for recovery of loan dues. A Division Bench of Justices Ravi Nath Tilhari and Balaji Medamalli allowed civil revision petitions filed by Katta Srinivasu and another petitioner against IKF Finance Limited, and held that the arbitral award was without jurisdiction and unenforceable.
The Court held: “We reach to the conclusion that the appointment of the sole Arbitrator unilaterally appointed by the Finance Company is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It was invalid. The Arbitrator had no jurisdiction, it lacked inherent jurisdiction to pass the Award. The ineligibility under law under Section 12 read with Seventh Schedule, was attracted with respect to the person legal Manager of the 1st respondent Finance Company was attracted. So, he could also not appoint/nominate 2nd respondent as the sole arbitrator. There was no express waiver by any agreement in writing in terms of proviso to Sub-Section (5) of Section 12 of the Act 1996.”
Case Title : Carolyn Joyce Tadamala v. Royal City Developer Private Limited
Case Number COMCA No. 27 of 2025
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC(APH) 40
The Andhra Pradesh High Court on 7 May held that a mere stipulation in an arbitration agreement that proceedings “shall be held” at Hyderabad does not, by itself, make Hyderabad the juridical seat of arbitration, especially where the agreement separately confers exclusive jurisdiction on civil courts in East Godavari District.
A Division Bench of Justices Ravi Nath Tilhari and Balaji Medamalli allowed a Commercial Court Appeal filed by Carolyn Joyce Tadamala against Royal City Developer Private Limited and set aside the Commercial Court order dated 1 December 2025 dismissing her Section 9 petition for want of territorial jurisdiction. It observed:
“Mere mentioning of a place of arbitration would not amount to fixing of the seat of arbitration, thereby conferring jurisdiction upon the courts of that place and Clauses 57 and 58 of the DAGPA must be conjointly read to arrive and draw the intention of the parties to the agreement while entering into such an agreement. Thus, the intention is very clear that the arbitration proceedings will be taken place at Hyderabad where the same has to be treated as a place/venue of arbitration and the same cannot be equated or elevated to the status of seat of arbitration.”
ONGC Cannot Seek Re-Deposit Of ₹42.89 Crore Withdrawn With Its “No Objection”: AP High Court
Case Title : Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. v. Deep Industries Ltd. & Ors.
Case Number : I.A. No.2 of 2025 in COM.CA. No.18 of 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(APH) 37
The Andhra Pradesh High Court on 7 May held that Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. (ONGC) cannot compel Deep Industries Ltd. (DIL) to re-deposit Rs. 42.89 crore or furnish security for amounts withdrawn in arbitration proceedings, particularly since ONGC had earlier given a written “no objection” permitting withdrawal without any condition.
A Division Bench of Justices Ravi Nath Tilhari and Balaji Medamalli dismissed ONGC's interim application in its pending Section 37 appeal against an arbitral award in favour of Deep Industries Ltd. It held:
“It is for the first time after filing the counter in I.A.No.2 of 2025 that the stand has been taken in the rejoinder affidavit that, the deponent of the counter, official of ONGC had not been instructed to give „no objection‟ to withdraw the amount by DIL. Under the circumstances, the plea taken appears to us to be well afterthought to get over the "no objection" made before the learned Special Judge by way of writing in the counter to permit withdrawal to DIL.”
Arbitral Mandate Can Be Extended After Expiry; No Limitation Prescribed: Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case Title: Gali Radha Bhagya Lakshmi v. Sree Constructions & Anr.
Case Number: Civil Revision Petition No. 84 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(APH) 42
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has recently reiterated that applications seeking extension of an arbitral tribunal's mandate can be filed even after expiry of the prescribed period and that courts must adopt a liberal approach while considering whether sufficient cause exists for granting such extensions.
Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Rohan Builders (India) Private Limited v. Berger Paints India Limited and its own earlier ruling in Chidepudi Bhanu Srivastava v. Kancharla Subrahmanyam, a Division Bench of Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Balaji Medamalli held:
"it is settled position in law that the application for extension of time for Arbitral Mandate under Section 29A of the Act, 1996 can be filed before the expiry of the period of mandate and also thereafter and the court has to record sufficient reasons for extension of the mandate as to why Arbitral Award could not be made within the mandated period. It is also settled that 'sufficient cause' has to be construed liberally so as to enable to give the mandate."
Jharkhand High Court
Jharkhand High Court Pulls Up JSBC for Seeking Adjournment In Arbitration Matter Over Transfer of MD
Case Title: K.S. MULTI FACILITY SERVICES PVT LTD vs JHARKHAND STATE BEVERAGES CORPORATION
Case Number: Arbitration Application No. 1 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (JHAR) 9
The Jharkhand High Court recently pulled up Jharkhand State Beverages Corporation for seeking a second adjournment in an arbitration matter on the ground that its managing director had been transferred.
The court observed that the corporation was “bent upon delaying the matter.” It then appointed former Jharkhand High Court judge Justice N.N. Tiwari as sole arbitrator in its dispute with K.S. Multi Facility Services Private Limited.
Chief Justice M.S. Sonak observed that the corporation's reasons for seeking adjournment were unconvincing. He noted that an earlier adjournment had been granted subject to payment of Rs. 10,000 in costs.
“On the ground that the Managing Director is not available or is transferred, this is the second time that adjournment is applied for, even though, earlier adjournment was granted, subject to payment of cost of Rs. 10,000/-. Surprisingly, even the costs have not been paid. The transfer of the Managing Director can hardly be a ground for the respondent-Corporation not to pay the cost of Rs. 10,000/-. This is a matter where the respondent is bent upon delaying the matter.”, It noted.
Case Title: Hindustan Dorr-Oliver Limited vs Uranium Corporation of India Limited
Case Number: Arbitration Application No. 3 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (JHAR) 11
The Jharkhand High Court on 8 May held that while exercising jurisdiction under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, a referral court is required to undertake only a prima facie examination of the existence of an arbitration agreement and cannot enter into disputed questions relating to limitation, maintainability or the effect of insolvency proceedings.
Chief Justice M.S. Sonak appointed former Andhra Pradesh High Court Judge Justice C. Praveen Kumar as the sole arbitrator to adjudicate disputes between Hindustan Dorr-Oliver Ltd. (HDOL) and Uranium Corporation of India Ltd. (UCIL) arising out of a contract dated 20 March 2009, while leaving all objections raised by UCIL open for consideration by the Arbitral Tribunal. The Bench observed:
“The Hon'ble Supreme Court pointed out that Section 11(6-A) uses the expression "examination of the existence of an arbitration agreement". The purport of using the word "examination" connotes that the legislature intends that the Referral Court has to inspect or scrutinise the dealings between the parties for the existence of an arbitration agreement. Moreover, the expression "examination" does not connote or imply a laborious or contested inquiry.”
Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court
Case Title : Union of India v. M/s K.K. Enterprises Contractors
Case Number : AA No. 07/2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (JAM) 3
The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh has dismissed an appeal filed by the Union of India challenging an arbitral award that granted 12 percent post-award interest, holding that the statutory 18 percent rate under the unamended law applies only where the award is silent.
A Division Bench of Justice Rajnesh Oswal and Justice Rahul Bharti dismissed an appeal filed by the Union of India challenging and award including the grant of 12 percent future interest in favour of K.K. Enterprises Contractors.
The Court examined Section 31(7)(b) of the 1997 Act as it stood prior to amendment. The provision states that a sum directed to be paid by an arbitral award shall carry interest at 18 percent per annum from the date of the award until payment, unless the award otherwise directs. Since the arbitrator had expressly granted 12 percent interest, the statutory default of 18 percent did not apply.
The Court said, "The learned Arbitrator exercised his discretion to grant future interest at the rate of 12% per annum. We find no illegality in this determination.”
Case Title : The Highways Authority of India through its Project Director Bharat Bhushan vs Rano Devi & Ors.
Case Number : WP(C) No.82/2024
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (JAM) 6
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has held that an arbitral award determining compensation under the National Highways Act cannot be interfered with in a Section 37 appeal merely because another view on valuation is possible.
Dismissing two appeals filed by the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI), Justice Javed Iqbal Wani reiterated that Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 provides only a limited right of appeal.
The Court further clarified that the Appellate Court under Section 37 supra cannot re-appreciate the evidence, re-evaluate factual findings or substitute its own view merely because another view is possible and that the errorsof fact or erroneous appreciation of evidence by the Arbitrator would not constitute valid grounds for interference, unless such errors go to the root of the matter and fall within the narrow category of patent illegality or contravention of fundamental policy of Indian law"
Venue Of Arbitration Is Seat In Absence Of Contrary Indication: J&K&L High Court
Case Title : S.D.Bhat vs Hindustan Construction Company Ltd (HCC Ltd) & Anr., 2026
Case Number : Arb P No.21/2021
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (JAM) 5
The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladkah High Court has recently reiterated that where an arbitration clause designates a particular place as the “venue” of arbitration and there is no contrary indication, such place must be treated as the “seat” of arbitration, thereby conferring exclusive jurisdiction on courts at that location.
"It is, thus settled that whenever there is mention of place of arbitration in an arbitration clause as being the venue of arbitration proceedings, it would really mean the seat of arbitral proceedings. This is so because the expression “arbitration/ arbitral proceedings” does not refer to individual hearing but conveys that entire arbitration process including making of the award shall be conducted at the place referred to as venue‟, the court observed.
Case Title : H.P.Singh & Co. Vs Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : AA No.5/2018
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (JAM) 4
The Jammu & Kashmir& Ladkah High Court on 13 February 2026 held that once a contractor voluntarily executes a supplementary agreement rescinding the original contract and issues an unconditional “No Claim Certificate,” no arbitral dispute survives.
A Bench of Justice Sanjeev Kumar dismissed the petition filed by H.P. Singh & Co. under Section 11(6) of the J&K Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1997, seeking appointment of an independent arbitrator against the Union of India and Northern Railways. Since the petitioner had voluntarily executed the supplementary agreement rescinding the arbitration clause and subsequently issued a No Claim Certificate without protest, the dispute was deemed settled by accord and satisfaction.
J&K & Ladakh High Court Refers Contract Dispute To Arbitration, Leaves Limitation Issue To Tribunal
Case Title : Ace Consultants v. J&K Projects Construction Corporation Ltd. & Ors.
Case Number : Arb P No.14/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (JAM) 9
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has recently reiterated that while deciding petitions for appointment of an arbitrator, the court cannot undertake a detailed inquiry into limitation, and such issues must be decided by the arbitral tribunal.
The court was hearing four petitions filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, seeking appointment of an independent arbitrator to adjudicate disputes arising between Ace Consultants, a proprietorship firm, and J&K Projects Construction Corporation Limited, regarding unpaid contractual amounts under certain works.
Justice Sanjay Dhar observed, “This Court, while exercising its power under Section 11 (6) of the Act, cannot go into this issue and it is only the arbitral tribunal, who can go into all these issues during arbitral proceedings.”
Case Title : Marshal Traders v. J&K Project Construction Corporation & Anr.
Case Number : Arb P. No.31/2023
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (JAM) 14
The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh has reiterated that a plea of limitation cannot by itself block the appointment of an arbitrator unless the claim is clearly time-barred, and that such questions should ordinarily be left to the arbitral tribunal.
A bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar relying on earlier precedents held,
“at the time of considering a petition under Section 11(6) of the Act, unless it is shown that the claim is ex facie time barred or hopelessly time barred, the Court exercising power under Section 11(6) of the Act for appointment of an arbitrator should not reject such application.”
It added that even a slight doubt must favour reference to arbitration:
“If there is slightest doubt with regard to arbitrability of the claim on account of it being time barred, the issue for determination in this regard should be left to the Arbitrator and the Court while exercising its power under Section 11 of Act should not venture to determine the said issue at reference stage.”
Arbitral Tribunal's Mandate Not Automatically Terminated After Deadline: J&K & Ladakh High Court
Case Title: M & Company Engineers & Contractors Pvt. Ltd. v. J&K Economic Reconstruction Agency & Ors.
Case Number: CM No.8828/2025 in AA No.23/2017
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (JAM) 15
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has reiterated that an arbitral tribunal does not permanently lose its authority merely because the deadline to pass an award has expired, holding that proceedings can continue if the Court later extends the time.
A Bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar relying on the Supreme Court's ruling in Rohan Builders (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Berger Paints India Ltd. observed:
“it is clear that expiry of stipulated time period for making award only makes the Arbitral Tribunal functus officio but not in absolute terms...”
J&K High Court Refers ₹34.88 Crore HRCC–ERA Dispute To Arbitration, Holds Non-Operational DRE No Bar
Case Title : M/s Hassan Roads Construction Company Private Limited v. J&K Economic Reconstruction Agency and ors.
Case Number: Arb P No. 53/2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (JAM) 18
The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court on 22 May held that the existence of a contractual pre-arbitration dispute resolution mechanism cannot defeat a party's right to invoke arbitration under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, where such mechanism has not been operationalised.
A Single-Judge Bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar appointed former Chief Justice of the High Court, Justice Ali Mohammad Magrey, as sole arbitrator to adjudicate disputes between Hassan Roads Construction Company Private Limited (HRCC) and the J&K Economic Reconstruction Agency (ERA) arising from termination of a Rs. 34.88 crore infrastructure contract. It held:
“The argument raised by the learned counsel for the respondents, at its first blush, appears to be attractive but upon its detailed examination, it prima facie appears that resort to the mechanism of approaching the Adjudicator/DRE was not feasible and suitable for the petitioner in the facts and circumstances of the present case.”
Case Title Kanta Devi v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number Arb. Pet. No. 38/2020 c/w AA No. 15/2020
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC (JAM) 16
The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court on 12 May dismissed a petition by Kanta Devi under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, holding that no valid arbitration agreement existed in relation to an ad hoc petrol pump dealership governed through a temporary arrangement with Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (HPCL).
Justice Rajnesh Oswal held that applying operational terms of HPCL's Standard Dealership Agreement to a temporary arrangement did not amount to incorporation of Clause 66 containing the arbitration clause. The Bench held:
“In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, this Court has no hesitation in holding that terms and conditions of the Standard Dealership Agreement were not ipso facto incorporated into the communication dated 18.04.2018; rather, they were made applicable solely for the purpose of the outlet's operation. Consequently, the arbitration clause contained in Clause 66 of the Standard Dealership Agreement did not form part of the communication dated 18.04.2018. Had the parties intended to settle disputes through arbitration, they would have explicitly stated so in the 18.04.2018 communication.”
Sikkim High Court
Courts Must Call For Arbitral Records Before Deciding Challenge To Arbitral Award: Sikkim High Court
Case Title : Union of India v. Nar Bahadur Dahal (NBD)
Case Number : Arb. A. No. 12 of 2025
Citation :2026 LLBiz HC (SI) 1
The Sikkim High Court has reiterated that a court hearing a challenge to an arbitral award cannot decide the matter without first calling for the records of the arbitral tribunal.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Bhaskar Raj Pradhan observed:
“The Court entertaining the application under Section 34 is required, imperatively, to look into the records of the Arbitral Tribunal to satisfy whether any grounds under Section 34 have been made out or not. Without calling for records, and merely on the basis of the arbitral award and upon hearing the parties, the Court cannot arrive at a conclusion with regard to any of the grounds raised under Section 34."
The ruling came while allowing an appeal filed by the Union of India against a Commercial Court order passed in proceedings challenging a ₹23.21 crore arbitral award in favour of contractor Nar Bahadur Dahal.
Orissa High Court
Case Title: Chief Engineer (Roads-1), Bhubaneswar v. M/s NKC Projects Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number: W.P.(C) No.35734 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(ORI) 17
The Orissa High Court has recently observed that a government authority cannot seek exemption from depositing an arbitral award amount merely on the ground of its status while seeking a stay.
Justice B.P. Routray upheld a Commercial Court order directing the Chief Engineer (Roads-1), Government of Odisha, to deposit the entire award of about Rs. 26.97 crore in a dispute with NKC Projects Pvt. Ltd.
The court held, “It cannot be contended on the part of the Petitioner that he being a Government authority is not required to be directed to deposit the award amount as a condition to stay enforcement of arbitration award in terms of Section 36(2) of the Act.”
Tripura High Court
Reconstructed Record Gaps No Ground To Set Aside Award: Tripura High Court
Case Title : Debashish Das v State of Tripura
Case Number : Commercial Appeal No.03 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (TRI) 2
The Tripura High Court on 1 April, held that a Court hearing a challenge to an arbitral award cannot rely on gaps in a reconstructed record to question the Arbitrator's findings or the existence of material that was before the Arbitrator at the time of adjudication. A Bench comprising Chief Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao and Justice Bishawajit Palit set aside the Commercial Court's order, and upheld the arbitral award. They held:
“...merely because they were not found in the reconstructed record, the award of the Arbitrator cannot be interfered with by the Commercial Court because such loss of original record cannot be put by the respondents as a point in their favour to doubt the Arbitrator's integrity and question the very existence of such material at all. Such material has to be believed to exist and also to have been considered by the Arbitrator, though it might have got lost subsequently."
Meghalaya High Court
Meghalaya High Court Upholds BSCPL's 5-Year Blacklisting For Alleged Corruption In NH-44E Project
Case Title : BSCPL Infrastructure Ltd vs Public Works Department (Roads)
Case Number : WA No.3/2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (MEG) 1
The Meghalaya High Court has recently upheld the five-year blacklisting of BSCPL Infrastructure Ltd by the State Public Works Department (Roads) for engaging in corrupt practices during execution of a National Highway project.
The court held that the department was justified in acting on ledger entries showing expenditure on liquor, electronic items, hotel bills and donations for government officials during execution of a National Highway project.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice W. Diengdoh dismissed the company's writ appeal. The Bench affirmed the order dated December 3, 2024 debarring the joint venture from participating in future PWD tenders. It also upheld the Single Judge's judgment dated December 17, 2025 dismissing the writ petition. A Division Bench of Chief Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice W. Diengdoh dismissed the company's writ appeal. The Bench affirmed the order dated December 3, 2024 debarring the joint venture from participating in future PWD tenders. It also upheld the Single Judge's judgment dated December 17, 2025 dismissing the writ petition.
“We find that no interference is warranted either in the order dated 3rd December, 2024, blacklisting the appellant-JV or in the order impugned dated 17th December, 2025, passed by the learned Single Judge in WP (C) No.24 of 2025,” the court observed.
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.