LiveLawBiz Arbitration Weekly Digest: October 12 - October 17, 2026
Shivani PS
19 Oct 2026 2:24 PM IST
NOMINAL INDEX
Indroneel Goho v. Razouvonuo Thong & Anr., 2026 LLBiz SC 337
Arcis Clean Energy Pvt. Ltd. v. Parshva Innovation, 2026 LLBiz SC 332
New Consolidated Construction Company Limited v. Limitless Contracting Private Limited & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 565
Hemlata Ajay Ramani v. Alag Property Constructions Pvt. Ltd., 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 564
Aatif Javeed Merchant v. S.S. Crown Infrastructure & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 563
Sky One Airways Private Limited v. Nayan Arun Jagjivan & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 561
MP Road Development Corporation v. Viva Highways Ltd., 2026 LLBiz HC (MP) 70
G. Ganapathy v. State Bank of India Officers' Association, 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 323
Sun TV Network Limited v. M/s. Marina Holdings & Another, 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 324
A.V. Vijayakumar (Deceased) & Ors. v. The Director, M/s. Sharekhan Limited & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 316
BGR Energy Systems Limited v. TUV SUD South Asia Private Limited, 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 314
Ajmal FC & Anr. v. Sh. Anuj Gupta & Ors., 2026 LLBizHC (DEL) 1137
Enerica Infra 3 Private Limited v. NTPC Vidyut Vyapar Nigam Limited & Anr., 2026 LLBizHC (DEL) 1136
Travel2Agent.com & Ors. v. M/s Spice Jet Limited, 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 1122
Mumbai International Airport Limited v. Airports Authority of India, 2026 LLBizHC (DEL) 1135
Abhoy Charan Bakshi v. National Highways Authority of India & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 1117
Syed Farhan Ali v. ABB India Limited, 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 1107
M/s Varsha Constructions v. Chief Engineer (Air Force), 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 199
Regional Manager, IRCTC v. Amulya Enterprises & Others, 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 200
Smt. T.S. Gomathi (Since Deceased), Represented by Smt. Padma v. M/s Capgemini Technology Services India Limited & Anr., 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 195
Friends Engineering Co-operative Society Limited v. Digha Shankarpur Development Authority, 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 260
West Bengal Housing Board v. M/s Shapoorji Pallonji and Company Private Limited, 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 254
Leisure Country Club and Resorts Private Limited v. Asim Kumar Ray & Anr., 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 261
Supreme Court
Supreme Court Quashes Cheating Case Against Ex-Darjeeling Organic Tea Estates CEO Over ₹40 Lakh Deal
Case Title Indroneel Goho v. Razouvonuo Thong & Anr.
Case Number Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 10621 of 2025; 2026 INSC 1115
Citation 2026 LLBiz SC 337
The Supreme Court has quashed cheating proceedings against Indroneel Goho, who was serving as Chief Executive Officer of Darjeeling Organic Tea Estates Private Limited at the time of a transaction involving the Jamguri Tea Estate in Assam.
The case arose from a ₹40 lakh agreement concerning the property.
A Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta set aside the Gauhati High Court's order refusing to quash the criminal proceedings. The complaint alleged that Goho had falsely represented that the estate belonged to the company. The Court held that mere failure to fulfil contractual obligations does not constitute cheating unless dishonest intention existed at the inception of the transaction.
“For an offence under Sections 417 and 420 of IPC, the fraudulent or dishonest intention must exist at the inception of the transaction and must have induced the complainant to part with property. A subsequent failure to perform a contractual obligation cannot, by itself, give rise to an inference of such intention,” the Court ruled
Arbitration Clause Cannot Alone Determine Seat When Multiple Places Are Specified: Supreme Court
Case Title ARCIS CLEAN ENERGY PVT. LTD VERSUS PARSHVA INNOVATION
Case Number Arising out of SLP Civil No. 35915 of 2025
Citation 2026 LLBiz SC 332
The Supreme Court has held that when an arbitration clause specifies two places, namely Delhi and Goa, the juridical seat of arbitration must be determined by reading the agreement as a whole, including the governing law and jurisdiction clause.
The Court rejected the argument that the arbitration clause alone should determine the seat because it is independent of the main contract.
A division bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Vijay Bishnoi set aside the Delhi High Court's November 11, 2025 order appointing an arbitrator in a dispute between Arcis Clean Energy Pvt Ltd and Parshva Innovation.
"The submission on behalf of the appellant that the arbitration agreement is independent of the main contract and, therefore, the arbitration clause would alone determine the juridical seat, and not the Governing Law clause, cannot be countenanced for the simple reason that the arbitration clause itself mentions two places, namely, Delhi and Goa.", the Court observed.
High Courts
Bombay High Court
Commercial Links With Party Insufficient To Refer Non-Signatory To Arbitration: Bombay High Court
Case Title New Consolidated Construction Company Limited vs 1. Limitless Contracting Private Limited 2. Man Realty Limited 3. Purvankara Limited
Case Number COMM ARBITRATION APPLICATION (L) NO.38984 OF 2025
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 565
The Bombay High Court on 29 September held that a company cannot be referred to arbitration merely because it has a commercial connection with a contracting party or the project in dispute. A non-signatory can be referred to arbitration only when material prima facie establishes its consent to be bound by the arbitration agreement.
Justice Amit Borkar appointed advocate Tushad Kakalia as sole arbitrator to resolve a dispute over Rs. 12.37 crore in construction dues between New Consolidated Construction Company Ltd. and Limitless Contracting Pvt. Ltd., while declining to refer Man Realty and Purvankara to arbitration. He held:
“...merely having some connection with one contracting party or with the project in which the contract was performed cannot by itself make a person a party to the arbitration.”
Interim Protection In Arbitration Can't Be Granted Merely On Disputed Money Claim: Bombay High Court
Case Title Hemlata Ajay Ramani V/s. Alag Property Constructions Pvt Ltd.
Case Number COMM ARBITRATION PETITION (L) NO.24230 OF 2026
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 564
The Bombay High Court on 5 October held that a party seeking interim protection under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, must demonstrate a real risk that recovery under a future arbitral award may become difficult, as a disputed monetary claim alone does not justify such relief.
Justice Amit Borkar directed Alag Property Constructions Pvt. Ltd. to deposit Rs. 58,97,600 within four weeks in a dispute with flat purchaser Hemlata Ajay Ramani over the refund of money following cancellation of a flat purchase agreement. The Bench held:
“The power under Section 9 cannot be used merely because there is some disputed claim for money. The party asking for protection has to show circumstances because of which such protection is necessary, so that the final arbitral award, if passed in its favour, does not become difficult to enforce. At the same time, the Court is not required to follow one fixed formula in every case. If the material before the Court shows that there is a real need for protection, the Court can consider an appropriate interim measure.”
Case Title Aatif Javeed Merchant v. S.S. Crown Infrastructure & Ors.
Case Number Commercial Arbitration Petition (L) No. 30951 of 2026
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 563
On Tuesday, 13 October, the Bombay High Court held that a real estate developer's ordinary business of selling flats does not, by itself, establish a partner's authority to enter into every property transaction on behalf of the firm.
Justice Amit Borkar partly allowed a petition filed by Aatif Javeed Merchant, a majority profit-sharing partner of S.S. Crown Infrastructure, under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, granting limited interim protection against unauthorised property transactions and directing the other partners to disclose sale particulars within four weeks. The Bench held:
“The fact that selling flats is part of the ordinary business of a developer is relevant. But that fact alone cannot decide whether a partner had authority to enter into each and every transaction.”
Case Title : Sky One Airways Private Limited v. Nayan Arun Jagjivan & Ors.
Case Number : Commercial Arbitration Petition (L) No. 30600 of 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 561
The Bombay High Court on 5 October dismissed Sky One Airways Private Limited's petition seeking to freeze shares held by Heligo Charters' sellers and restrain actions affecting the company, holding that the airline's belated offer to pay the overdue Rs. 52.50 lakh instalment did not establish timely compliance with the share-purchase terms.
Justice Amit Borkar held that a party seeking interim protection in an acquisition dispute cannot establish readiness and willingness to perform its obligations by offering to pay an overdue instalment after the dispute has arisen. The Bench observed:
“Readiness and willingness cannot be shown only by an offer made after the dispute has started when an important payment had remained unpaid earlier.”
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Case Title : MP Road Development Corporation v Viva Highways Ltd
Case Number : Writ Petition no. 38779 of 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(MP) 70
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has recently held that an arbitrator's decision conclusively determining an issue of jurisdiction as a preliminary issue constitutes an interim award, which can be challenged under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Alpesh Y. Kogje and Justice Deepak Khot held that the appropriate remedy against an order passed in Section 34 proceedings is an appeal under Section 37 and not a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.
"The Court is of the considered opinion that as the application under section 16 of the Act of 1996 filed by the petitioner having been dismissed by the Arbitrator, which was subjected to challenge in a writ petition, which was finally decided by relegating the matter to the Arbitrator to decide the issue of jurisdiction as a preliminary issue, the Arbitrator has decided the said issue finally, hence such a decision shall be inferred as an interim award and is amenable to the challenge under section 34 of the Act of 1996"
Madras High Court
SBI Officers' Association Member's Removal Dispute Not Arbitrable Under Bye-Laws: Madras High Court
Case Title Mr.G.Ganapathy Vs State Bank of India Officers' Association
Case Number Arb Appln.No.1892 of 2026
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 323
The Madras High Court has ruled that the State Bank of India Officers' Association's bye-laws did not provide for arbitration of a dispute over the removal of a member from the Association's membership and elected post.
Justice K. Kumaresh Babu dismissed an application filed by former Regional Secretary G. Ganapathy seeking to stay the Association's July 28, 2026 order removing him from its Executive Committee and primary membership pending arbitration.
“When that being the interpretation, this Court is of the view that the applicant for resolving a dispute that arises out of his removal from membership of the association including his elected post cannot be subject matter of an arbitration, as there is no arbitration clause for resolving such a dispute,” the court observed.
Case Title Sun TV Network Limited v. M/s. Marina Holdings & Another
Case Number A. No. 1663 of 2026 in E.P. No. 122 of 2025
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 324
The Madras High Court has recently held that Sun TV Network Limited could not claim protection from attachment based on an unregistered guarantee and undertaking.
The court dismissed its application to release properties attached in proceedings initiated by Marina Holdings against N. Ramasamy, proprietor of Sri Thenandal Films.
Justice K. Kumaresh Babu observed that Section 64(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, requires the relevant contract for transfer or delivery to be registered before attachment to qualify for the statutory exception.
“It is true that a pre-existing right before an order of attachment can aid the benefit of holder of such pre-existing right over the order of attachment. But, however, Section 64 mandates that such a contract of transfer or delivery entered should have been registered before the attachment. Admittedly, in the present case, the deed of guarantee or the undertaking which are the relevant documents that have been claimed to vest a pre-existing right to the applicant are not registered documents.”, the court ruled.
Case Title A.V. Vijayakumar (Deceased) & Ors. v. The Director, M/s. Sharekhan Limited & Ors.
Case Number OSA No. 283 of 2021
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 316
The Madras High Court on 12 October held that Section 42 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, grants exclusive jurisdiction to the court where an application is first filed only if that court has jurisdiction under the arbitration agreement.
A Division Bench comprising Justices N. Sathish Kumar and G.K. Muthukumaar allowed an appeal filed by an investor, subsequently represented by his legal heirs, against Sharekhan Limited. It set aside a Single Judge's order dismissing the investor's challenge to an arbitral award for lack of jurisdiction and remanded the matter for consideration on merits. The judges held:
“We also find that, in circumstances where two Courts simultaneously have jurisdiction under the arbitration agreement, then it is only in such circumstances that the Court where the arbitral proceedings were first initiated will have jurisdiction and not the other court if any proceedings are subsequently initiated therein.”
Case Title : BGR Energy Systems Limited v. TUV SUD South Asia Private Limited
Case Number : Arbitration Appeal No. 131 of 2026 and CMP No. 27692 of 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 314
The Madras High Court has ruled that a party cannot seek arbitration in a commercial suit after forfeiting its right to file a written statement within the mandatory 120-day deadline, even if it is subsequently allowed to cross-examine witnesses.
A Division Bench of Justice N. Sathish Kumar and Justice G.K. Muthukumar held that allowing a party to participate in cross-examination does not permit it to bypass the statutory deadline by subsequently seeking reference to arbitration.
“Merely because the appellant was permitted to participate in the proceedings to cross-examine the plaintiff side witnesses, the appellant cannot take advantage of the same and use Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, as a procedural device to circumvent the mandatory time limit introduced by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015,” the Bench observed.
Delhi High Court
Delhi High Court Refers Football Clubs' DSA Membership And Electoral Rights Disputes To Arbitrator
Case Title Ajmal FC and Anr. v. Sh. Anuj Gupta and Ors. (and connected matters)
Case Number O.M.P.(I) 15/2026, 16/2026, 17/2026, 18/2026, 19/2026 and 20/2026
Citation 2026 LLBizHC (DEL) 1137
The Delhi High Court has referred disputes involving six football clubs over disciplinary action affecting their membership and electoral rights in the Delhi Soccer Association to a previously appointed sole arbitrator.
Justice Om Prakash Shukla has asked the arbitrator to consider their requests for interim relief expeditiously, ahead of the association's elections on October 18, 2026.
The court observed, “Considering that the elections are scheduled for 18.10.2026, the learned Arbitrator is requested to take up the application for interim measures on an expeditious basis and make an endeavour to pass such appropriate order(s), in accordance with law, prior to the scheduled election.”
The six clubs are Ajmal FC, Goodwill FC, Hans Capital FC, Growing Stars SC, Ahbab FC and Mughal SC. They approached the high court in separate petitions against Anuj Gupta and others, challenging disciplinary action taken ahead of the elections.
Case Title Enerica Infra 3 Private Limited v. NTPC Vidyut Vyapar Nigam Limited & Anr.
Case Number O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 346/2026 & I.A. 27144/2026
Citation 2026 LLBizHC (DEL) 1136
The Delhi High Court has recently held that it cannot entertain a plea seeking interim relief in an electricity dispute when the State Electricity Regulatory Commission is empowered to grant similar relief under the Electricity Act, 2003.
Justice Tushar Rao Gedela dismissed a petition filed by Enerica Infra 3 Private Limited seeking to restrain NTPC Vidyut Vyapar Nigam Limited and Uttar Pradesh Power Transmission Corporation Limited from encashing bank guarantees worth ₹52.20 crore.
“It is clear from a reading of sub-section (2) of Section 94 of the Act that the SERC has the inherent powers to pass interim orders in any proceeding, hearing or matter before it. This jurisdiction conferred upon the SERC also postulates that the Commission can pass interim protection orders in the nature of those passed by Civil Courts under Section 9 of the A&C Act,” the court observed.
Case Title Travel2Agent.com & Ors. v. M/s Spice Jet Limited
Case Number OMP (ENF.) (COMM.) 192/2025, EX.APPL.(OS) 1486/2026, 1487/2026 & 1488/2026
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 1122
The Delhi High Court has recently directed debt-laden airline SpiceJet Limited to maintain approximately ₹58.80 lakh in its ICICI Bank and IDFC Bank accounts while hearing an application by Travel2Agent.com and others seeking attachment of the airline's bank accounts to recover dues under an arbitral award.
Justice Tushar Rao Gedela passed the order on October 9, 2026, after the decree holders' counsel submitted that SpiceJet had paid ₹25 lakh towards the outstanding amount of ₹83.80 lakh.
The court directed:
“In the meanwhile, judgment debtor is directed to maintain in its aforenoted Bank accounts, a sum of Rs.58,80,856/- (approx.) till the next date of listing.”
Case Title Mumbai International Airport Limited v. Airports Authority of India
Case Number FAO(OS) (COMM) 202/2024
Citation 2026 LLBizHC (DEL) 1135
The Delhi High Court has ruled that a judge's reproduction of substantial portions of an arbitral award while deciding a challenge to it does not, by itself, establish non-application of mind, provided the judge meaningfully examines the objections raised.
“The distinction lies not in the extent of textual reproduction, but in the existence or absence of judicial engagement with the controversy. Consequently, the mere circumstance that substantial portions of an arbitral award have been reproduced in a judgment does not, without more, establish non-application of mind,” a Division Bench of Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Bharat Parashar observed.
The court clarified that a judge need not formulate every reason afresh if the reasoning already on record is legally sustainable.
“Where a court examines the challenge before it and finds the reasoning of the decision under challenge to be legally sustainable, it may adopt that reasoning as the basis for its conclusion. Such adoption may be expressed by reproducing the relevant reasoning, referring to it, or expressly agreeing with it. The form in which the court conveys its agreement is not, by itself, determinative of the validity of the order. What matters is whether the judgment, read as a whole, demonstrates that the court has considered the controversy in the light of the applicable legal principles,” it ruled.
Delhi High Court Upholds Nil Award In ₹4.37 Cr. NHAI Contract, Says Claims Of Extra Work Needs Proof
Case Title M/s Abhoy Charan Bakshi v. National Highways Authority of India & Ors.
Case Number O.M.P. (COMM) 107/2023
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 1117
On 13 October, the Delhi High Court dismissed Abhoy Charan Bakshi's petition challenging a nil arbitral award in favour of the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) over a Rs. 4.37 crore road maintenance contract for the Baharampore–Farakka section of National Highway 34 in West Bengal.
Justice Subramonium Prasad held that a contractor cannot claim payment for additional work without evidence establishing that the work was carried out, and found that the arbitral tribunal had no basis to quantify the alleged additional work without supporting evidence. The Bench observed:
“In absence of any material to showcase additional work done by the Petitioner, there was no mechanism available before the Tribunal to compute or even establish that the alleged extra work was done by the Petitioner.”
Case Title Syed Farhan Ali v. ABB India Limited
Case Number CM(M) 1689/2026 & CM APPL. 50213/2026
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 1107
The Delhi High Court has upheld arrest warrants against a company's authorised representative for withholding details of its bank account during execution of an arbitral award, holding that filing an incomplete asset-disclosure affidavit cannot shield a company officer from coercive action under the Code of Civil Procedure.
Justice Ajay Digpaul dismissed a petition filed by Syed Farhan Ali, the authorised representative of Techno Aircon Industries Pvt Ltd, challenging the warrants issued by an executing court. The Court clarified that Ali was not being made personally liable under the arbitral award; the coercive proceedings arose from his own failure to comply with the asset-disclosure directions.
The Court held that filing an affidavit under Order XXI Rule 41(2) is not a formality. An officer who withholds material particulars within his knowledge cannot claim compliance merely because an affidavit was filed.
It observed, “The true import of Rule 41(2) is to secure a complete and meaningful disclosure of all material particulars of the assets of the judgment-debtor, so that the decree-holder and the executing court are placed in a position to effectively pursue satisfaction of the decree. The filing of an affidavit cannot, therefore, be treated as a mere formality. An affidavit filed by an officer of a company, which withholds material particulars, particularly information within the knowledge of the officer furnishing it, cannot constitute compliance in substance with a direction under Rule 41(2), and would therefore be punishable under Rule 41(3).”
Karnataka High Court
Karnataka High Court Appoints Arbitrator In ₹2.53 Cr. Dispute Concerning Military Engineer Services
Case Title M/S VARSHA CONSTRUCTIONS vs CHIEF ENGINEER (AIR FORCE)
Case Number CIVIL MISC. PETITION NO. 150 OF 2026
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 199
The Karnataka High Court on 8 October appointed retired District Judge Prabhavathi Hiremath as the sole arbitrator to resolve contractual disputes between Varsha Constructions and the Military Engineer Services over the construction of an Academic Block at the Air Force Technical College in Jalahalli, Bengaluru.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice H.T. Narendra Prasad observed:
“Having regard to the existence of the arbitration clause contained in the Construction Agreement, which provides for resolution of disputes arising between the parties, and the fact that the petitioner has duly invoked the said arbitration clause by issuing notice under Section 21 of the Act, this Court is of the opinion that a Sole Arbitrator is required to be appointed for adjudication of the disputes between the parties.”
Case Title Regional Manager, IRCTC v. Amulya Enterprises & Others
Case Number Commercial Appeal No. 490 of 2024
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 200
The Karnataka High Court has recently ruled that a lawyer's assumption that judgment would be postponed cannot justify a delayed appeal. The failure to check whether the judgment was subsequently delivered remained unexplained.
Dismissing a commercial appeal filed by the Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation (IRCTC) against Amulya Enterprises, the court refused to condone a 92-day delay in challenging a Commercial Court decree dated June 11, 2024.
A Division Bench of Justice Anu Sivaraman and Justice T.P. Vivekananda, in a judgment dated October 9, 2026, observed:
“The fact that pronouncement had been adjourned on earlier occasions may account for counsel's impression on the date of judgment. It does not explain the failure to ascertain the result thereafter. The steps taken during that period to verify the status of the suit are not disclosed.”
Case Title Smt. T.S. Gomathi (Since Deceased), Represented by Smt. Padma v. M/s Capgemini Technology Services India Limited & Anr.
Case Number Commercial Appeal No. 362 of 2026
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 195
The Karnataka High Court on 16 September held that an arbitrator cannot interpret a contract in a manner that nullifies an independent right of termination expressly provided under its terms.
A Division Bench comprising Justices D.K. Singh and H. Shanthi Bhushan dismissed an appeal filed by Padma, the landlord's legal representative, and upheld the Bengaluru Commercial Court's decision to partly set aside an arbitral award against Capgemini Technology Services India Limited. It observed:
“Although the learned Sole Arbitrator was undoubtedly competent to interpret the terms of the Lease Deed, the interpretation adopted could not have the effect of effacing an express contractual provision.”
Calcutta High Court
Case Title LEISURE COUNTRY CLUB AND RESORTS PRIVATE LIMITED VS ASIM KUMAR RAY AND ANR
Case Number AP 406 OF 2021
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 261
The Calcutta High Court has ruled that arbitration proceedings cannot affect orders passed by consumer forums, clarifying that developers can pursue independent contractual claims through arbitration even after consumers have chosen the statutory remedy.
"Nothing done in arbitration can affect an order of a consumer forum, which may be challenged or enforced only under the consumer legislation. Any award remains subject to Section 34 of the Act," Justice Gaurang Kanth observed.
The court clarified that while a developer cannot force consumers to arbitrate their grievances against their choice of forum, it can pursue independent claims that the consumer forum has no jurisdiction to decide.
Case Title Friends Engineering Co-operative Society Limited Vs. Digha Shankarpur Development Authority
Case Number AO-COM NO. 40 of 2026
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 260
The Calcutta High Court has recently held that an appellate court can examine grounds challenging an arbitral award that were raised before the lower court but left undecided, provided they are available on the arbitral record.
A Division Bench of Justices Debangsu Basak and Aryak Dutt set aside the District Judge, Purba Medinipur's March 12, 2019 order quashing an arbitral award in favour of Friends Engineering Co-operative Society Limited and also set aside the award dated February 14, 2014.
"The grounds under Section 34 are on record. A respondent in appeal may support the result on a ground urged below that the lower court did not decide. An Appeal Court under Section 37 can therefore examine the grounds on the arbitral record.", the Court held.
Calcutta High Court Conditionally Stays Shapoorji Pallonji Award Against West Bengal Housing Board
Case Title West Bengal Housing Board v. M/s Shapoorji Pallonji and Company Private Limited
Case Number AP-COM/188/2026
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 254
The Calcutta High Court on 31 August conditionally stayed an arbitral award dated 13 September 2025 in favour of Shapoorji Pallonji and Company Private Limited against the West Bengal Housing Board, and directed the Board to secure the entire awarded amount within eight weeks.
Justice Gaurang Kanth also directed the Housing Board to deposit 50% of the awarded amount, along with up-to-date interest, in cash and secure the remaining 50% through a bank guarantee. Holding that this arrangement would balance the financial interests of both parties, the Bench observed:
“Considering the submissions made by both sides and keeping in mind the balance of convenience and equity between the parties, this Court is of the view that the awarded amount ought to be secured by way of 50% cash deposit and 50% bank guarantee.”