High Courts Should Exercise Caution Before Invoking Article 227 In Ongoing Arbitration: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled that High Courts should exercise "extreme circumspection" before using their supervisory powers to interfere with ongoing arbitral proceedings. It held that orders rejecting jurisdictional objections during arbitration are ordinarily challengeable only after the final arbitral award. A bench of Justice K.V. Viswanathan and Justice Vijay Bishnoi observed that the constitutional power of High Courts cannot be taken away. At the same time, it observed that the...

Supreme Court Refuses To Interfere With Madras HC Order On Arbitrator Appointment In Adani-Tamil Nadu Coal Dispute

The Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to interfere with the Madras High Court's ruling upholding the appointment of a sole arbitrator in a dispute between Adani Global Pte. Ltd. and Tamil Nadu Power Generation Corporation Ltd. over a contract for the supply of 39 lakh tonnes of imported coal. The court, however, recorded Adani's statement that it would be free to raise all other grounds available to it in the pending proceedings under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. A...

Plaintiff In Commercial Suit Bound By 120-Day Time Limit To File Reply To Counterclaim: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Monday held that a plaintiff in a commercial suit cannot file a written statement to a defendant's counterclaim beyond the mandatory outer limit of 120 days prescribed under the Commercial Courts Act. It ruled that the statutory timeline applicable to defendants equally governs plaintiffs replying to counterclaims. A bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and K. Vinod Chandran ruled that the mandatory timeline under the proviso to Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure...

Once Complaint Is Admitted, Arbitration Clause Cannot Oust Consumer Forum Jurisdiction: Supreme Court

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...

SC Issues Notice on Afghanistan Cricket Board's Plea Seeking Arbitrator In Content Monetisation Dispute With Indian Firm

The Supreme Court on Tuesday issued notice in a petition filed by the Afghanistan Cricket Board seeking appointment of a sole arbitrator in a dispute with Mumbai-based Nimayate Corporate Solutions Pvt Ltd over alleged non-payment of dues under a content monetisation agreement. The matter was taken up by a Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice V. Mohana. According to the plea, the Afghanistan Cricket Board and Nimayate Corporate Solutions entered into a Content Monetisation Agreement on...

Supreme Court Refuses To Interfere With Arbitrator Appointment In Nissan Dealership Dispute

The Supreme Court on Monday refused to interfere with a Punjab and Haryana High Court order appointing an arbitrator to resolve disputes between Vision Plus Financial Services (Vision Datsun) and Nissan Motor India Pvt Ltd arising out of a dealership agreement. A bench of Justices Manmohan and Vijay Bishnoi declined to entertain Nissan Motor India's challenge to the March 9, 2026, order by which the High Court appointed former Punjab and Haryana High Court judge Justice Pramjeet Singh Dhaliwal...

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...