Supreme Court 'Oral Undertaking Falls Within Scope Of Arbitration Clause' : Supreme Court Upholds Award Against Husband For Operation In Wife's Demat Account Case Title: AC CHOKSHI SHARE BROKER PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS JATIN PRATAP DESAI & ANR. Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 178 The Supreme Court today (February 10) held that an oral contract undertaking joint and...
Supreme Court
'Oral Undertaking Falls Within Scope Of Arbitration Clause' : Supreme Court Upholds Award Against Husband For Operation In Wife's Demat Account
Case Title: AC CHOKSHI SHARE BROKER PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS JATIN PRATAP DESAI & ANR.
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 178
The Supreme Court today (February 10) held that an oral contract undertaking joint and several liability falls within the scope of an arbitration clause.
Holding so , the Court affirmed an arbitral award against a husband, finding him jointly liable for the award due to a debit balance in a joint demat account registered in his wife's name.
The Court rejected the contention that the husband's liability constituted a "private transaction" beyond the scope of arbitration. Instead, it held that the arbitration clause, applicable to non-signatories, in conjunction with the husband's active participation in transactions within his wife's account, gave rise to an implied oral agreement establishing joint and several liabilities for both parties.
Supreme Court Reiterates Narrow Scope Of Interference Under Section 37 Arbitration Act
Case Name: M/s. C & C Constructions Ltd. vs. IRCON International Ltd., CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6657 OF 2023
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 148
The Supreme Court reiterated that in appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, the Court has a narrower scope to review the arbitral award if the award has already been upheld under Section 34 (application for setting aside arbitral awards). Reliance was placed on the recent decision in Larsen Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Company vs Union of India.
At the outset, the Bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan pointed out that the appellants have challenged the validity of clause 49.5 of the Contract that barred the appellant's present claim. However, given that this issue was not raised before the High Court, the appellant could not have raised this in the present appeal for the first time.
“Careful perusal of the judgment of the learned Single Judge shows that the contention that the validity of clause 49.5 ought to be decided in the light of Sections 23 and 28 of the Contract Act was not raised before the learned Single Judge in a petition under Section 34. The said contention was not raised even before the Division Bench in appeal under Section 37. Therefore, it is not open to the appellant to raise the said contention in this appeal for the first time.”
High Courts
Allahabad High Court
Section 36 Of Arbitration Act As Amended Applies To Pre-Amendment S.34 Applications: Allahabad High Court Reiterates
Case Title: U.P. Jal Nigam (Urban) And Another vs. Spml Infra Ltd.
Neutral Citation No.: 2025:AHC:20224
The Allahabad High Court bench of Justice Piyush Agrawal, placing reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Board of Control for Cricket in India vs. Kochi Cricket Private Limited & Others (2018), held that the amended Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 applies prospectively to court proceedings initiated on or after the date of commencement of the Amendment Act.
Andra Pradesh High Court
Case Title: Alliance Enterprises v. Andhra Pradesh State Fiber Net Limited (APSFL)
Case Number: Arbitration Application No. 48 of 2023
The Andhra Pradesh High Court bench of Chief Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur has held that the limitation period for filing an application seeking appointment of arbitrator under Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, commences only after a notice invoking arbitration has been issued by one of the parties and there has been either a failure or refusal on the part of the opposite party to make an appointment as per the procedure agreed upon between the parties. The Court referred to the judgment of the Apex Court in Arif Azim Co. Ltd. v. Aptech Ltd. wherein the court had observed that the “limitation period for making an application seeking appointment of arbitrator must not be conflated with the limitation period for raising the substantive claims which are sought to be referred to an arbitral tribunal.”
Applying the law laid down in these precedents to the facts of the present case, the Court observed that the notice invoking arbitration clause was issued by the Applicant only on 17.10.2022. Assuming that three years were to be calculated from the said date itself, the present application which was filed on 31.08.2023 was well within the period of limitation of three years as prescribed by Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
Named Arbitrator Cannot Be Replaced Unless There Is Evidence Of Partiality Or Bias Against Them: Andhra Pradesh HC
Case Title: M/s. Kranthi Grand DKNV Hospitalities and another Vs. M/s. Manasa Estates and Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. and 2 others
Case Number:ARBITRATION APPLICATION NO: 62 of 2023
The Andhra Pradesh High Court bench of Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur has held that the request for seeking appointment of an independent arbitrator other than the named arbitrator cannot be entertained if there is no evidence to show that the named arbitrator would act in a partial or biased manner. The court observed that the explanation given by the applicant as to why the arbitrator other than the nominated arbitrator is required to be appointed is very casual. No reasons have been furnished whether the named arbitrator falls any of the ineligibilities prescribed under section 12(5) of the Arbitration Act.
The Supreme Court in Indian Oil Corporation Limited and others vs. Raja Transport Private Limited (2009) held that the appointment of the named arbitrator in the agreement is a rule and appointment of the arbitrator other than the named arbitrator should be treated as an exception.
[A&C Act] Non-Payment Of Part Of Mutually Agreed Amount After Settlement Of Dispute Not An Arbitrable Issue Under Arbitration Agreement: Andhra Pradesh HC
Case Name: M/s.Brothers Engineering and Erectors Ltd. Vs. M/s. Zorin Infrastructure, LLP
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has upheld the dismissal of an application filed under section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, holding that once an amount has been mutually decided by the parties, the dispute itself is resolved and no arbitrable issue remains for consideration.
A Division Bench of Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice V. Srinivas pointed out that non-payment of part amount of the mutually agreed amount cannot be said to give rise to an arbitrable dispute. When an arbitration clause stipulates that 'any dispute' is arbitrable, it should be understood in line with section 8 of the Act, to mean 'any dispute' arising out of a contractual agreement. Giving credence to the judgement rendered in Emaar India Ltd. v. Tarun Aggarwal Projects LLP, the Bench noted that ideally, jurisdiction lies with the Tribunal to decide whether a matter is arbitrable or not and the High Court is only granted the power to have a 'second look'. However, the bench pointed out, that there is one exception to this rule. When the issues are manifestly and ex facie certain that the arbitration agreement is non-existent, invalid or the disputes are non-arbitrable, the Court may interfere and reject the application at the threshold.
Bombay High Court
Case Title: Maharashtra Public Service Commission Versus Vast India Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 56
The Bombay High Court bench of Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan has held that the mandate of the MSME Facilitation Council (Council) cannot be terminated merely on the ground that it failed to render an award within 90 days under section 18(5) of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (“MSME Act”) from the date of entering reference as this time period is directory in nature.
Additionally, the court observed that although the time period under the MSME Act is directory, once the arbitration is undertaken by the Council, the timeline prescribed under Section 29A of the Arbitration Act becomes applicable. Accordingly, the award must be rendered within 12 months from the completion of pleadings. However, the court noted that in this case, a counterclaim was also filed by the MPSC, which reset the 12-month deadline as provided under Section 29A of the Arbitration Act. Therefore, the award rendered by the Council was within the prescribed timeframe and could not be said to be in violation of Section 29A.
When There Is Ambiguity In Arbitration Agreement, Business Efficacy Test Can Applied To Discern Intent Of Parties To Arbitrate: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Lords Inn Hotels and Resorts Versus Pushpam Resorts LLP and 3 Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 60
The Bombay High Court bench of Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan has held that when there is an ambiguity in the agreement with respect to arbitration related provisions, the business efficacy test can be applied to discern true intent of the parties to arbitrate.
The court observed that as per section 7(4) of the Arbitration Act, an arbitration agreement would be considered in writing if it is contained in a document signed by the parties or in exchange of letters or other means of communication which includes electronic communication. Furthermore, the court observed that under Section 7(5), a reference in a contract, to a document containing an arbitration clause would constitute an arbitration agreement, if the contract is in writing and the reference is such as to make that arbitration clause a part of the contract.
Limitation For Appeal U/S 37 Of Arbitration Act Is Governed By Article 116 Of Limitation Act, Delay Not To Be Condoned In Mechanical Manner: Bombay HC
Case Title: Executive Engineer National Highway Division Versus Sanjay Shankar Surve & Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 61
The Bombay High Court bench of Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan has held that the delay in filing an appeal under section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,1996 (“Arbitration Act”) should not be condoned in a mechanical manner as it would defeat the very objective of the Arbitration Act which is to provide a speedy resolution of disputes.
It also held that as per judgment of the Supreme Court in Executive Engineer v. Borse Brothers Engineers and Contractors Private Limited (2021), the limitation period under section 37 of the Arbitration Act is governed by Article 116 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (“Limitation Act”) which provides for a 90 days time period. The delay in filing the appeal beyond 90 days can be condoned under section 5 of the Limitation Act but only when sufficient cause is demonstrated.
Court At Designated Venue In Arbitration Agreement Can Entertain Application U/S 11 Of Arbitration Act: Bombay High Court
Case Number: Keller Ground Engineering India Private Limited Versus Archon Powerinfra India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 62
The Bombay High Court bench of Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan has held that the court having supervisory over designated venue of the Arbitration proceedings would have jurisdiction to entertain application under section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Arbitration Act”) in absence of any contrary indicia indicating any other place to be the seat of arbitration.
The court rejected the submission that the court does not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present application under section 11 of the Arbitration Act on the ground that the parties have chosen consciously in their agreement that the venue for the arbitration proceedings shall be Mumbai. It also observed that whether the document executed is a valid document is a matter to be decided by the Arbitrator and not by the court under section 11 of the Arbitration Act. Furthermore, whether the work that has been carried out is with respect to one work or both requires adjudication on merits which can be decided by the Arbitrator.
Calcutta High Court
Plaint Cannot Be Rejected Even If No Satisfaction Is Recorded By Court On Bypassing Pre-Institution Mediation U/S 12A Of Commercial Courts Act: Calcutta HC
Case Title: Haldibari Tea Manufacturers LLP & Anr. Versus Mahindra Tubes Limited & Ors.
Case Number: CO 204 of 2024
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury has held that admission of the plaint by the Commercial Court without recording satisfaction as to whether the requirement of pre-institution mediation under section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (“Commercial Courts Act”) can be bypassed and a case for urgent relief is established, cannot be said to be fatal and the plaint cannot be rejected on this ground alone.
The court observed that accepting the plaint without recording the satisfaction as to the urgency of relief cannot be said to be fatal. The court at the time of scrutinizing the plaint has to see whether the case for the urgent relief is established. It need not go into the question whether the plaintiff will succeed in obtaining the same. Even if interim relief is denied or the case is weak, the plaint cannot be rejected on this ground alone
Calcutta High Court Upholds Arbitral Award Directing KMDA To Refund Amount Deposited By South City Projects Under MoU
Case Title: KOLKATA METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS. SOUTH CITY PROJECTS (KOLKATA) & ANR.
Case Number: APO/205/2023 WITH AP/351/2020 IA No. GA/1/2023
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justices Harish Tandon and Madhuresh Prasad has held that findings of the Arbitrator based material cannot be interfered with within the limited scope of proceedings under section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act).
The court noted that as per Article XX the remedy of requiring the defaulting shareholder to sell its shares to the non-defaulting shareholder is not absolute and is without prejudice to other rights. Article XX does not contain a clause ousting remedies legally available otherwise to the parties. This aspect of the matter has been considered by the arbitrator and decided against the appellant. It further added that the submission that there was no obligation on the KMDA to create any right or obligation in favour of the claimants in respect of the immovable property was rightly rejected. It further noted that a factual finding had been recorded based on his evidence that without encroachments being removed the development of even the reduced lands measuring 83.52 Kottahs of land was not possible.
Case Title: Kalpataru Projects International Limited vs. Bharat Heavy Electrical Limited (BHEL)
Case Number: AP-COM/94/2025
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar has held that in an application under section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, it would not be proper for the referral court to indulge in an intricate evidentiary enquiry into the question of whether the claims raised by the petitioner were time-barred or not.
“Courts, at the referral stage, can interfere only when it is manifest that the claims are expressly time barred and dead or when there are no subsisting disputes. In all other cases, the matter should be referred to the arbitral tribunal for decision on merits.”, the court observed.
The court referred to the decision in 'Aslam Isamil Khan Deshmukh vs. ASAP Fluids Private Limited and anr.' which clarified that the referral court must only conduct a limited enquiry to examine whether the application under section 11(6) had been filed within three years or not.
Govt Authority Must Furnish Security Before Getting Stay On Award U/S 36(3) Of A&C Act, No Special Treatment Can Be Given: Calcutta High Court
Case Title:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, NATIONAL LIBRARY, MINISTRY OF CULTURE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA VS EXPRESSION 360 SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (NOW KNOWN AS EXPRESSION AD AGENCY PVT. LTD.)
Case Number:AP-COM/860/2024, AP-COM/644/2024 and EC-COM/245/2024
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar has held that special treatment cannot be given to the government while hearing a petition seeking stay on the enforcement of the award under section 36(3) of the Arbitration Act. Every petitioner including the government will have to furnish security or deposit the awarded amount before a stay on the enforcement of the award can be granted.
The court noted that the Supreme Court in Pam Development (Supra) held that Arbitration is essentially an alternate dispute resolution mechanism curated to provide a swift and quick resolution of disputes therefore if money decree award passed against the government is allowed to be stayed unconditionally, it would defeat the very purpose of the Arbitration Act as the award holder would be deprived of the fruits of the award on mere filming an application under section 34 of the Arbitration Act.
Chhattisgarh High Court
Execution Proceedings Can't Be Quashed Solely Due To Non-Supply Of Signed Arbitral Award: Chhattisgarh High Court
Case Title: Amit Kumar Jain vs. Induslnd Bank Limited Through Its Director & Anr.
Case Number: WP227 No. 39 of 2025
The Chhattisgarh High Court bench of Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey has held that non-supply of the signed arbitral award may be a ground for setting aside an award, but on this ground alone, the execution proceedings cannot be quashed.
The court noted that the petitioner did not take any steps to obtain a certified copy of the award. “Non-supply of the signed arbitral award may be a ground for setting aside an award, but on this count alone, the execution proceedings cannot be quashed”, the court observed. The court observed that an award can only be challenged under section 34(2) and not otherwise. It dismissed the petition.
Delhi High Court
Case Title: BHADRA INTERNATIONAL INDIA PVT LTD AND ORS. versus AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 173
The Delhi High Court bench of Justices C. Hari Shankar and Ajay Digpaul held that the award cannot be set aside solely on the ground that the appointment of the Arbitrator was illegal in view of section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act (Arbitration Act) when no such objections were raised before the Arbitrator or the court under section 34 of the Arbitration Act.
The court noted that if the arbitrator was legally incompetent to act as an arbitrator, mere acquiescence of the appellants would not render him competent. However, the court while setting aside the award solely on this ground must also consider the broader objective of the Arbitration Act that is to promote Arbitration as the preferred mode of dispute resolution mechanism. It also observed that despite the introduction of section 12(5), the arbitration continued for two more years and the award came to be passed. But the appellants never raised a whisper before the Arbitrator or the court under section 34 that the arbitrator was incompetent to act as an arbitrator based on section 12(5).
Delhi High Court Upholds Arbitral Award Against IRCTC In Dispute Over Reimbursement For Catering Services, Sets Aside Interest As 'Patently Illegal'
Case Title: Indian Railways Catering and Tourism Corp. Ltd. (IRCTC) vs. M/s. Brandavan Food Products
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 179
The Delhi High Court bench comprising Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Shalinder Kaur has reiterated the limited scope of interference under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“A&C Act”). The court upheld the arbitral award granted in favour of M/s Brandavan Food Products Ltd. (“Claimant”) in a dispute regarding the reimbursement of differential costs for meals and beverages supplied under a catering contract with the Indian Railways Catering and Tourism Corporation Ltd. (IRCTC) (“Respondent”). The court set aside the interest award as 'patently illegal' as interest could not be granted on amounts not due as of a particular date.
Delhi High Court Re-Affirms Discretion Of Arbitral Tribunal To Implead 'Non-Signatory' As 'Necessary Party' In Arbitration Proceedings
Case Title: Dixon Technologies (India) Limited vs. M/s Jaiico & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 194
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad has reaffirmed that an Arbitral Tribunal has the authority to implead non-signatories to an arbitration, provided they are deemed 'necessary parties' to the proceedings.
The court was hearing an application u/s. 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act for the appointment of Arbitrator to adjudicate disputes arising under a Standard Transportation agreement and Customs Clearing Agent agreement. The petitioner had impleaded Respondent no.2, a non-signatory to the agreements.
Case Title: Union of India v. Reliance Industries Limited & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 202
A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, comprising of Justice Rekha Palli and Justice Saurabh Banerjee, while hearing an appeal under Section 37 of the A&C Act, set aside an arbitral award in favour of Reliance Industries Limited(RIL). The Court invoked the doctrine of 'public policy in India', 'public law' and 'Public Trust Doctrine' and observed that the findings of the Arbitral Tribunal (AT) which held that the RIL's breach of Production Sharing Contract (PSC) was not a material breach of the PSC and 1959 PNG Rules, was in violation of fundamental law of India and the award was patently erroneous.
The Court observed that the issue of 'patent illegality' involves Article 297 of the Constitution, and 'public policy in India', 'public law' and 'Public Trust Doctrine', being all intertwined, are to be considered. By Article 297 of the Constitution, UOI is a depository holding the natural resources of India as a Trustee, and without the explicit and express permission of the UOI, there can be no extraction of the said resources by anyone. The findings of AT pertaining to the implicit permission of the UOI of the 'migrated gas' require consideration. The UOI entered into a PSC with RIL since RIL had the 'technical know-how.' RIL was appointed for a specific and limited purpose of exploring/extracting the natural resources for and on behalf of the UOI.
Failure To Attach Impugned Arbitral Award Along With Section 34 Application Would Render Filing Non-Est: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Pragati Construction Consultants v. Union of India and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 210
A full bench of Delhi High Court comprising of Justice Rekha Palli, Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Saurabh Banerjee while hearing a reference made by a single judge bench in Pragati Construction Consultants v. Union of India [FAO(OS)(COMM) 70/2024] held that if the party challenging an award u/s 34 of the A&C Act does not attach the impugned arbitral award with the Section 34 application, the filing will be considered "non-est." The Court further held that the filing of the arbitral award along with the Section 34 application is an essential requirement.
The bench observed that the arbitral award can be set aside by the Court u/s 34(2)(a) of the A&C Act, if the applicant establishes on the basis of the record of the arbitral tribunal that any of the grounds mentioned in the said section were violated during arbitral proceedings. An award can also be set aside u/s 34(2)(b) of the A&C Act, if the subject matter of the dispute was not capable of being settled by arbitration, or if the award was in conflict with the public policy. Furthermore, an award arising out of arbitrations other than international commercial arbitrations, may also be set aside by the Court u/s 34(2A) of the A&C Act, if the award is vitiated by patent illegality appearing on the face of the award. It would be impossible to satisfy the conditions given u/s 34 of the A&C Act, if the arbitral award is not placed on record.
Case Name: Unison Hotels Pvt Ltd v. KNM Chemicals Pvt Ltd
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 219
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri has upheld an Arbitral award stating that objections regarding the quality of goods must be raised within a reasonable time as per section 42 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930. The court concurred with the decision of the Arbitral Tribunal that since the Petitioner failed to dispute the quality of supplies within a reasonable time, its counterclaims were rightly dismissed.
The court noted that the Arbitral Tribunal observed that the petitioner ought to have aired its objections with regard to the quality of the goods within 15 days of receipt of the same. As per the admitted case of the parties, the goods were last supplied on 12.06.2019; however, the objections for the first time were put on record after nearly four and a half months.
MSMED Act Will Prevail Over Arbitration Act In Disputes Pertaining To A Party Which Is An MSME: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Idemia Syscom India Private Limited v. M/s Conjoinix Total Solutions Private Limited
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 231
The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri has reiterated that the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is a general law governing the field of arbitration whereas the MSMED Act, 2006 governing a very specific nature of disputes concerning MSMEs, is a specific law and being a specific law would prevail over Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The Court observed that while Arbitration & Conciliation Act is a general law governing the field of arbitration, MSMED Act governs a very specific nature of disputes concerning MSMEs and it sets out a statutory mechanism for the payment of interest on delayed payments. Thus, MSMED Act being the specific law and Arbitration and Conciliation Act being the general law, it would prevail over the general law. The Court noted that in view of Section 18 and Section 24 of the MSMED Act which provide non obstante clauses which have the effect of overriding any other law for the time being in force, the legislative intent is clear that MSMED Act would have an overriding effect on the provisions of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act. The Court relied on the judgments of the Apex Court in Silpi Industries and Ors. v. Kerala SRTC and Anr. (2021) and Gujarat State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. v. Mahakali Foods (P) Ltd. (2023).
Arbitral Award Not Signed By All Members Of Tribunal Can Be Set Aside If Reasons For Omission Of Missing Signature Are Not Stated: Delhi High Court
Case Title: M/s Isc Projects Private Limited v. Steel Authority of India Limited
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 249
The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Prateek Jalan has observed that the signature of all members of the arbitral tribunal should be available on the award as the signing of an award is not a ministerial act but a substantive requirement. It was further observed that if the signature of any member of the tribunal is omitted, then the reasons should be stated as this requirement is referable to the need to ensure that all members of the tribunal have has an opportunity to participate in the decision-making process.
Construction Of Terms Of Contract Must Be Primarily Decided By Arbitrator, Not Court U/S 34 Of Arbitration Act: Delhi High Court
Case Title: 'DELHI METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD versus VOESTALPINE SCHIENEN GMBH, AUSTRIA
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 137
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma has held that Construction of the terms of the contract is primarily for the arbitrator to decide, unless it is found that such a construction is not at all possible.
The court at the outset traced the jurisprudence with respect section 34 of the Arbitration Act.It referred to the Supreme Court judgment in MMTC Ltd. V.JM. Combine (2019) where it was held that an arbitral award can be set aside if it is arbitrary, capricious, perverse or shocks the conscience of the court. The award passed by the arbitrator can also be set aside when the illegality is not trivial but goes to the root of the matter. An arbitral award may not be interfered with if the view taken by the arbitrator is a possible view based on facts. Similarly, the Apex Court in K. Sugumar v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (2020) held that there is the highly constricted power of the court to interfere with an arbitral award for the reason that if parties have chosen to avail an alternate mechanism for dispute resolution, they must be left to reconcile themselves to the wisdom of the decision of the arbitrator and the role of the court should be restricted to the bare minimum.
Award Passed By Improperly Appointed Arbitrator Is Non-Est In Law And Invalid: Delhi High Court
Case Title: ISAR ENGINEERS PRIVATE LTD. versus NTPC-SAIL POWER COMPANY LTD
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 140
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh has held that it is settled law that the Arbitrator is a creature of the contract and has to function within four corners of contract. If a particular mechanism is contemplated for his appointment, the same must be followed in its true letter, spirit and intent, failing which the Arbitrator is without jurisdiction and the appointment is non-est and invalid.
The court noted that as per arbitration clause, the general manager/unit head was empowered to act as an arbitrator and in the absence of the general manager/unit head, managing director or chairman of the respondent company was empowered to appoint any other person as an arbitrator. It further added that prior to amendment act of 2015, appointment of an employee as an arbitrator was not by itself a ground for bias as held by the Supreme Court in Aravali Power Co. (P) Ltd. v. Era Infra Engg. Ltd., (2017) . However, justifiable doubts could be raised if the person was a controlling or dealing authority with respect to subject matter in dispute.
Gujarat High Court
Case Title: NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA Versus KISHORBHAI VALJIBHAI JETHANI & ORS.
Case Number: C/FA/4705/2023
The Gujarat High Court bench of Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Pranav Trivedi has held that the plea that limitation period for challenging the award under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) did not start as the signed copy of the award was not received by the party, cannot be raised for the first time in appeal under section 37 of the Arbitration Act.
It fwas urther observed that if the applicant/ NHAI was aware of the fact that the provisions of Section 31(5) had not been complied with and signed copy of the award had not been delivered to the NHAI, it was required to make the said plea before the Court by making a declaration of the fact about the non-delivery or improper delivery of the award in the application under Section 34, itself.
Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court
Contract Which Is Renewable Based On 'Criteria Of Performance' Is Deemed Renewed Unilaterally After Criteria Is Met, Cannot Be Terminated: J&K HC
Case-Title: Zaffar Abbas Din vs Nasir Hamid Khan, 2025
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 37
The Jammu and Kashmir High Court held that where renewal of contract is based on the criteria of performance, the contract is deemed to have to been extended, if the said criteria is met. It also held that courts cannot interfere with the interpretation given by an Arbitrator if the same is reasonable and not opposed to logic.
In this case, the Arbitrator was to determine legality of breach of agreement by interpreting the agreement-clause which said that “the agreement between the parties was compulsorily renewable after the expiry of first five years, if the sales remained satisfactory.”
Jharkhand High Court
Court Having Jurisdiction Over Seat Of Arbitration Would Be Entitled To Entertain Petition U/S 34 Of Arbitration Act: Jharkhand High Court
Case Title:M/s MECON Limited Versus M/s K.C.S. Pvt. Ltd.
LL Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Jha) 15
The Jharkhand High Court bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi has held that the court having jurisdiction over the seat of Arbitration would be entitled to entertain a petition under section 34 of the Arbitration Act.
The court noted that the Supreme Court in BGS SGS SOMA JV v. NHPC Limited,(2020) held that whenever any designation of a place of arbitration is mentioned in the agreement as an arbitration clause being the “venue” of the arbitration proceedings, the expression “arbitration proceedings” would make it clear that the “venue” is really the “seat” of the arbitral proceedings.
Madras High Court
Executing Courts Can't Annul Arbitral Awards Solely On Ground Of Unilateral Appointment Of Arbitrator: Madras High Court
Case Title: M/s.Sundaram Finance Limited vs. S.M. Thangaraj & Ors.
Case Number: C.R.P.No. 5197 of 2024
The Madras High Court bench of Justice N. Sathish Kumar has observed that the issue of ineligibility of the arbitrator cannot be raised during the pendency of the execution proceedings. The court held that the Executing Courts cannot suo motu dismiss the Execution Petition(s) solely on the ground of unilateral appointment of an arbitrator.
The court held that the executing court cannot suo motu annul the award when a party to the agreement did not challenge the award on the ground of ineligibility of the arbitrator under Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. “As long as there is no objection raised, it cannot be said that a mere unilateral appointment of arbitrator would vitiate the entire arbitral proceedings which culminated in an award”, the court stated.
Arbitral Award Can Be Set Aside As 'Patently Illegal' If View Taken By Arbitrator Is Not A Plausible One: Madras High Court
Case Title:M/s.Chennai Metro Rail Limited Vs Transtonnelstroy Limited
Case Number: OP Nos. 530 & 531 of 2017 & A.No.3818 of 2017
The Madras High Court bench of Justice P.B. Balaji has held that when the view taken by the Arbitrator is not even a plausible view, an award passed by such an arbitrator can be set aside under section 34 of the Arbitration act on the ground of patent illegality.
The court noted that a plain reading of clause 13.16.5 shows that when price variation formula in CPA 32 is adopted, then the respondents cannot be entitled to claim any additional costs, unless there is a claim falling under the three exceptions, namely customs duty, excise duty and output TN VAT which also is again subject to the rider that it will be paid to the extent that it is not covered by the price variation formula. It further added that “the Tribunal has misread the clauses and erroneously proceeded to hold that clause 13.16 of GCC entitles the respondent for price adjustment because of change in legislation after the base date. However, the express modifications made by CPA 37, replacing sub clause 13.16 of GCC have not been factored or looked into by the Tribunal.”
No Bar On Court To Entertain More Than One Application U/S 29A Of Arbitration Act: Madras High Court
Case Title: M/s.Powergear Limited, Chennai. Vs. M/s.Anu Consultants, Hyderabad
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 48
The Madras High Court bench of Justice Abdul Quddhose has held that there is no prohibition for the Court to entertain more than one application under Section 29A of the Act seeking extension of time for the arbitrator to pronounce arbitral award provided sufficient cause is demonstrated.
The court noted that 'section 29A' of the Arbitration Act does not prohibit multiple applications for extending the mandate of the Arbitrator. The only requirement is that sufficient cause must be demonstrated for seeking extension of the mandate of the tribunal.
It further added that when there are no restrictions as to the number of times an application seeking extension of the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal can be filed, the court cannot prohibit parties from filing such applications provided sufficient cause is demonstrated.
Arbitral Award Can't Have Specific Format; Reasoning Must Be 'Proper', 'Intelligible' And 'Adequate' : Madras High Court
Case Title: Gopal Krishan Rathi vs. Dr. R. Palani
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 51
The Madras High Court bench comprising Justice K. .R. Shriram (Chief Justice) and Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy have observed that an arbitral award does not have to follow any specific format; just as every judge writes their judgment in a particular style, arbitrators also write in different styles.
The court also held that any ground which was not raised in a petition under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 cannot be raised at the stage of appeal under Section 37 of the Act. The court further observed that reasoning of the award must be 'proper', 'intelligible' and 'adequate'.