Limitation To Challenge Arbitral Award Begins Only After Tribunal Disposes Of Post-Award Pleas: Supreme Court

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...

Pending Suit Dispute Could Be Referred To Arbitration Only Through Court Under 1940 Act: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Friday held that under the now-repealed Arbitration Act, 1940, parties to a pending civil suit could not validly refer their dispute to arbitration without jointly approaching the court where the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...

Arbitration In India Has Not Failed, Courts Sometimes Have Failed Arbitration: Supreme Court

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...

Unstamped Arbitration Agreement Survives; Objection Must First Be Raised Before Arbitrator: Supreme Court

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,...

Supreme Court Refuses To Set Aside “Patently Illegal” Arbitral Award, Modifies Relief Instead

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...

Power To Correct Clerical Errors In Arbitral Awards Can't Be Used To Substantially Modify Them: Supreme Court

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...

Supreme Court To Examine If It Can Invoke Article 142 To Enable Arbitral-Style Dispute Resolution Where Existing Remedies Fail

The Supreme Court on Tuesday issued notice on applications filed by an intervenor raising the question of whether, in exceptional cases involving complex disputes where existing remedies are incapable of producing effective and expeditious resolution, the top court can create a court-supervised dispute resolution mechanism with arbitral characteristics. The question particularly concerns matters involving State instrumentalities. A Bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and N V Anjaria issued...

LiveLawBiz Arbitration Cases Weekly Digest: May 18 - May 23, 2026

NOMINAL INDEXPatanjali Ayurved Limited and Ors. Versus Ashav Advisory LLP, 2026 LLBiz SC 196Pandrol Rahee Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. IRCON International Ltd., 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 518Cinda Engineering and Construction Private Limited v. CY Engineering India Private Limited, 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 506Sarvesh Security Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Institute of Human Behavior Resource and Allied Sciences, 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 516Dewan and Sons and Ors. Vs Harsh International, 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 526Hazel Mercantile...

Supreme Court Asks Delhi HC To Dispose Patanjali-Ashav Arbitration Dispute Over Ruchi Soya Deal

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...

West Asia Crisis: Supreme Court Lets SpiceJet Move Delhi HC Over ₹144 Crore Deposit Order In Dispute With Kalanithi Maran

The Supreme Court on Tuesday allowed SpiceJet Limited and its chairman Ajay Singh to approach the Delhi High Court to seek modification of a direction requiring a cash deposit of ₹144.51 crore in the long-running arbitration dispute with Kalanithi Maran and Kal Airways Private Limited. The airline cited the ongoing West Asia crisis and said it expected additional funding under the Centre-backed emergency credit guarantee scheme for airlines.A Bench of Justices P.S. Narasimha and Alok Aradhe,...

SpiceJet Moves Supreme Court Against Delhi HC Refusal To Modify ₹144.51 Crore Deposit Condition In Dispute With Kalanithi Maran

SpiceJet Limited and its chairman, Ajay Singh, have moved the Supreme Court against a Delhi High Court order refusing to allow them to secure ₹144.51 crore due to Kalanithi Maran and Kal Airways by depositing title deeds of SpiceJet's Gurugram property instead of making a cash deposit in their long-running arbitration dispute.A Bench of Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Alok Aradhe will likely hear Spicejet's plea on May 19. On review petitions filed by SpiceJet and Ajay Singh, the High...

Earlier Arbitration Clause Binds Developer, Society Members As Redevelopment Agreements Adopted All Terms: Supreme Court

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...