High Courts Bombay High Court Contractor Cannot Be Denied Payment For Extra Work Approved By Railways Through Their Actions: Bombay High Court Case Title: Union of India Through The General Manager Central Railway Versus PLR HC RBR JV Case Number: COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION PETITION NO.51 OF 2024 The Bombay High Court bench of Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan has held that...
High Courts
Bombay High Court
Contractor Cannot Be Denied Payment For Extra Work Approved By Railways Through Their Actions: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Union of India Through The General Manager Central Railway Versus PLR HC RBR JV
Case Number: COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION PETITION NO.51 OF 2024
The Bombay High Court bench of Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan has held that a contractor cannot be denied payment for extra work that, while beyond the original scope of the agreement, was clearly consented to by the other party through its conduct. When such work is accepted, measured, and not objected to contemporaneously, the benefiting party cannot later claim it was beyond the contract's scope. To allow this would amount to unjust enrichment.
The court noted that the work was executed in line with the Agreement under the active supervision of Railways officials, especially during the Covid-19 lockdown. Extensions were granted based on ground realities. Despite alleging deficiencies, the Railways made no counterclaim in arbitration. Joint measurements, approved RA Bills, and prior conduct confirmed acceptance of excess work.
It observed that the Arbitral Tribunal rightly held that the Railways' conduct indicated consensual and documented expansion of work, and it could not rely on the absence of a formal amendment to deny payment. The Tribunal's findings are reasonable, well-supported, and cannot be faulted.
Bombay High Court Upholds Arbitral Award Against BCCI, Directs Payment Of ₹538.9 Crore To Defunct IPL Franchise Kochi Tuskers Kerala
Case Title: Board of Control for Cricket in India v. Kochi Cricket Private Limited and Anr.
Case Number: ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 1752 OF 2015 and ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 1753 OF 2015
The Bombay High Court has upheld an arbitral award granting damages amounting to 538.9 crore to Kochi Cricket Private Limited ("KCPL”), the parent company of defunct IPL franchise Kochi Tuskers Kerala. It was held that the Court cannot act as a Court of First Appeal and delve into a fact-finding exercise by revisiting and re-appreciating the record and accepting competing interpretations of the various clauses of the agreements between the parties by invoking the ground of perversity.
The bench of Justice Riyaz Iqbal Chagla observed that the Arbitrator adjudicated the core issue, i.e., whether Board of Control for Cricket in India (“BCCI”) has wrongfully invoked the bank guarantee furnished by Rendezvous Sports World (“RSW”) and whether this amounted to a repudiatory breach of KCPL's Franchise Agreement (“KCPL-FA”), by considering the material facts and documents on record as well as the evidence recorded.
Calcutta High Court
Once Arbitration Commences After Failure Of Conciliation Under MSME Act, It Cannot Be Reinitiated By Halting Arbitration: Calcutta High Court
Case Title: The Board of Major Port Authority for the Syama Prasad Mukherjee Port, Kolkata Vs. Marinecraft Engineers Private Limited
Case Number: A.P.-COM No.296 of 2024 (Old No. A.P. 179 of 2023)
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya has held that once arbitral proceedings commenced under Section 18(3) under the MSME Act, the process could not be reversed to reinitiate pre-arbitral conciliation. The Council did not do so either. It was only at the petitioner's request that additional avenues for mutual settlement were explored alongside the arbitration. Upon the failure of these efforts, the Council proceeded to decide the matter on merits.
The court noted that the timeline stipulated under Section 29A of the 1996 Act are not applicable to an arbitral proceeding under the 2006 Act. Rather, the period stipulated under Section 18(5) of the 2006 Act is the relevant guiding factor. However, the latter period is directory and not mandatory.
It further observed that unlike Section 29A(1) of the 1996 Act, Section 18(5) of the 2006 Act prescribes a 90-day timeline for arbitral proceedings without imposing a penalty for delay or terminating the Council's mandate, indicating the provision is directory, not mandatory.
Injunction Can't Be Granted In Absence Of Any Risk Of Assets Dissipating Or Pleadings Indicating Frustration Of Award: Calcutta High Court
Case Title:SREI EQUIPMENT FINANCE LIMITED VS TRINITY ALTERNATIVE INVESTMENT MANAGERS LIMITED
Case Number: AP-COM/1049/2024 IA GA-COM 1 of 2025 GA-COM 2 of 2025
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar has held that at this stage, the petitioner is adequately secured under the schedule to the deeds of hypothecation agreement. The respondent remains fully operational and continues its business activities. There is nothing in the pleadings to suggest that the respondent has attempted to remove or alienate its assets in a manner that would render any future award in favour of the petitioner unenforceable or illusory.
The court noted that the petitioner's claim of Rs. 53.61 crores being due is unsupported by any admission from the respondent. While the petitioner valued certain investments at Rs. 12.41 crores, additional investments disclosed in this proceeding were valued at Rs. 41.04 crores. It further observed that although the petitioner disputes these valuations, no concrete calculations have been provided to disprove them. Further examination would amount to a mini-trial, and investment values are subject to market fluctuations. The charge on these investments was created consciously between experienced commercial entities, with no evidence of malafide conduct by the respondent.
Arbitrator Can't Be Impleaded In Application U/S 36(2) Of A&C Act Unless Prima Facie Case Of Fraud Or Corruption Is Established: Calcutta HC
Case Title:WEST BENGAL INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. VS. TATA MOTORS LIMITED
Case Number: AP-COM/88/2024 IA No. GA No. 1 of 2025
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Aniruddha Roy has held that when an application under Section 36(2) seeking unconditional stay of the award on the ground of fraud or corruption is pending adjudication, the question of impleading the person who delivered the award does not arise at such a premature stage. Unless the court, upon examining the application, arrives at a prima facie finding that the award was indeed procured by fraud or corruption, impleadment is neither necessary nor maintainable.
The court noted that at the outset, it appears that the instant application is premised on the Supreme Court's judgments in Vinod Bhaiyalal Jain and Microsoft Corporation, both of which were rendered in the context of Section 34 proceedings. While a Section 34 court may review the award in detail within its limited jurisdiction, the grounds of fraud, corruption, or bias must be adjudicated at that stage. For an unconditional stay under Section 36(2), the applicant must clearly establish fraud or corruption by the tribunal as defined under Section 36(3); mere allegations of bias do not suffice.
Professional Engagement With Law Firm Does Not Disqualify Advocate From Acting As Arbitrator: Calcutta High Court
Case Title: DAMODAR VALLEY CORPORATION VS AKA LOGISTICS PRIVATE LIMITED
Case Number: AP-COM/178/2025
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar has held that an Advocate who has accepted briefs from a law firm for unrelated clients cannot, by that fact alone, be deemed ineligible to act as an Arbitrator in disputes involving parties not personally known to or represented by him, even if the same law firm appears in the arbitration.
The Court noted that Section 12(5) of the said Act provides that, notwithstanding any prior agreement to the contrary, any person whose relationship with the parties or counsel or the subject matter of the dispute falls under any of the categories specified in the VIIth schedule, shall be ineligible to be appointed as an arbitrator.
It further observed that Schedule VII deals with the arbitrator's relationship with parties or counsel. Category 3 of the VIIth Schedule, provides that the arbitrator shall not represent the lawyer or the law firm, acting as counsel for one of the parties. Which means that the learned Arbitrator should not have represented the law firm as its Advocate or counsel in any legal proceeding.
Arbitration Clause Mandates Reference, Question Of Appropriateness Can't Be Considered U/S 8 Of A&C Act: Calcutta High Court
Case Title: M/S. CHOLAMANDALAM INVESTMENT AND FINANCE COMPANY LIMITED Versus SUJAN SEIKH
Case Number: FMA/251/2025 IA No: CAN/1/2025
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justices Arijit Banerjee and Rai Chattopadhyay has held that where an agreement between the parties contains a clear arbitration clause and disputes arise under that agreement, the Trial Court is bound to refer the parties to arbitration. The question of whether such reference is appropriate or not does not arise, as Section 8(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is mandatory in nature.
The court observed that the impugned order must be set aside. Since the agreement contains a valid arbitration clause and disputes have arisen under it, the Trial Court was bound to refer the parties to arbitration under Section 8(1) of the Arbitration Act. The question of it being appropriate or inappropriate does not arise in view of the language of Section 8(1) of the Arbitration Act, which is mandatory. Once a party applies before filing the first substantive statement, the Court must refer the matter to arbitration unless it finds that no valid arbitration agreement exists.
Chhattisgarh High Court
Reliefs Similar To Those Sought Before Arbitrator & Commercial Court Can't Be Claimed Before Writ Court: Chhattisgarh High Court
Case Title: Angelique International Limited versus Union of India Ministry of Railways (Railway Board) and Ors.
Case Number: WPC No. 2946 of 2025
The Chhattisgarh High Court bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru has held that reliefs similar to those already sought before the Arbitrator and subsequently before the Commercial Court cannot be claimed before the writ court, especially when alternative efficacious remedies are available before the same forums for seeking such reliefs.
The court noted that perusal of the record would show that there were two Contract Agreements i.e. Contract Agreement dated 18.09.2017 as well as Contract Agreement dated 26.04.2017 and the petitioner has challenged Contract Agreement dated 26.04.2017 before the Sole Arbitrator, which was allowed vide order dated 15.03.2022 and the final award was passed. It further noted that the record reflects that the respondents challenged the final award dated 15.03.2022 by filing Case No. Arb. MJC 06 of 2024, which was dismissed by the Commercial Court vide order dated 08.11.2024.
Delhi High Court
Jurisdiction Of Arbitral Tribunal Continues Despite Provisional Attachment Of Assets Under PMLA Or Parallel Proceedings: Delhi High Court
Case Title: LATA YADAV versus SHIVAKRITI AGRO PVT. LTD & ORS.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 696
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Amit Mahajan has held that the mere reference to certain assets in a provisional attachment order does not, by itself, oust the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal. Similarly, the pendency of parallel investigations by the CBI or ED into allegations of fraud does not bar the arbitrator from adjudicating the dispute. Arbitration proceedings can continue independently, even when some aspects of the subject matter are under criminal investigation.
The court noted that the scope of interference under Article 227 of the Constitution is limited and must be exercised sparingly. Though courts can review orders passed in arbitral proceedings, such interference is justified only in exceptional cases where glaring perversity is evident. The Supreme Court in Deep Industries Ltd. v. ONGC (2020) held that Article 227 cannot be used to bypass the arbitration framework and should be invoked only in rare circumstances. It further observed that merely alleging fraud does not render a dispute non-arbitrable. In A. Ayyasamy v. A. Paramasivam (2016), the Supreme Court distinguished between simple and serious allegations of fraud, holding that only serious allegations—those affecting the validity of the arbitration agreement itself—would bar arbitration.
Plaint Can't Be Rejected Under O.VII R.11 Of CPC Due To Arbitration Clause Unless Application U/S 8 Of A&C Act Is Filed: Delhi High Court
Case Title: DIN DAYAL AGRAWAL HUF versus CAPRISO FINANCE LTD
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 715
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Ravinder Dudeja has held that if a proper application is filed under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the Court must refer the parties to arbitration and may reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) as barred by law. However, if no such application is filed and no prayer is made for reference to arbitration, the mere existence of an arbitration clause is not sufficient to reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
The court noted that the Supreme Court in Booz Allen and Hamilton Inc. v. SBI Home Finance Ltd. (2011) laid down a five-factor test for courts to determine whether to refer parties to arbitration under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act. These include confirming the existence of a valid arbitration agreement, whether all parties to the suit are parties to the agreement, if the disputes fall within the agreement's scope, and whether the application under Section 8 was made before the first statement on the substance of the dispute. Section 8 mandates referral to arbitration unless the court finds no valid agreement exists.
Party That Unilaterally Appointed Arbitrator Not Barred From Challenging Appointment U/S 12(5) Of Arbitration Act: Delhi High Court
Case Title: M/s MAHAVIR PRASAD GUPTA AND SONS versus GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 716
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Tejas Karia and Justice Vibhu Bakhru has held that a party that unilaterally appoints an arbitrator is not prohibited from challenging the award on the ground that it violates Section 12(5) read with the Seventh Schedule of the Arbitration Act. Mere exercise of the power to make such an appointment does not constitute an express written waiver as required under the proviso to Section 12(5) of the Arbitration Act.
The court noted that unilateral appointment of an arbitrator by one party is impermissible under Section 12(5) of the Arbitration Act, read with the Seventh Schedule, as it raises justifiable doubts regarding the arbitrator's independence or impartiality. Such an appointment is void ab initio, and any award passed by an ineligible arbitrator is unenforceable in law.
It further observed that Section 12(5) of the Arbitration Act overrides Section 4 and requires an express written waiver to validate an otherwise ineligible arbitrator's appointment. Waiver by conduct or participation is not sufficient. The Supreme Court in Bharat Broadband held such ineligibility is de jure, and the arbitrator's mandate terminates automatically under Section 14(1)(a).Consenting to the extension of the mandate of the arbitrator under Section 29A(3) of the Act does not constitute a valid express waiver in writing as required under the proviso to Section 12(5) of the Act.
Applicability Of Arbitration Clause Is To Be Determined By Arbitrator, Cannot Be Decided In S.11 Plea: Delhi High Court
Case Title: INDRAPRASTHA GAS LIMITED versus M/S CHINTAMANI FOOD AND SNACKS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 683
The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Sachin Datta has held that contentions regarding the applicability and relevance of an arbitration agreement are to be dealt with by the arbitrator and cannot be gone into at the stage of section 11 petition. Once the existence of arbitration agreement is not disputed, any dispute related to the applicability of the agreement has to be dealt by the arbitrator. Further, the court observed that the arbitration agreement between the parties contemplates that the appointment of the sole Arbitrator shall be made out of a panel of three persons chosen by the petitioner. This appointment procedure is no longer valid in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Central Organisation for Railway Electrification Vs. ECI SPIC SMO MCML (JV) A Joint Venture Company (2024). It is held that it is incumbent on the court to appoint an independent sole arbitrator.
Once Right To File Written Statement Is Closed, Application U/S 8 Of Arbitration Act Can't Be Entertained: Delhi High Court
Case Title: R. SANTOSH versus ONE97 COMMUNICATIONS LTD
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 688
The Delhi High Court bench of Justices Shalinder Kaur and Navin Chawla has held that once the right to file a written statement is closed, an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act seeking reference to arbitration is not maintainable.
The court noted that the Respondent supported its claim through PW-1's affidavit and documentary evidence, including the Ticketing Agreement , Addendum Agreement and statement of accounts, and the termination notice. The Appellant did not cross-examine PW-1 on 12.12.2023, thus failing to contest either the testimony or the documents. This unchallenged evidence is deemed proved, indicating the absence of any credible defence by the Appellant.
Recourse To External Correspondences To Interpret Clause Despite Clear & Unambiguous Terms Amounts To 'Patent Illegality': Delhi High Court
Case Title: Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. v. JSIW Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 692
The Delhi High Court bench comprising Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tejas Karia has held that when the language of the contract is plain, clear and unambiguous, recourse to internal aids of interpretation or extraneous materials such as negotiations and correspondence is impermissible. “Ignoring an explicit clause of the contract or acting contrary to the terms of the contract amounts to patent illegality.”, the court held.
The Court further observed that when the language of Clause 3.4.1.5 of the GCC was plain, clear and unambiguous, the internal aid of interpretation was impermissible. It held that the arbitral tribunal wrongly relied on negotiations and correspondence that were explicitly excluded by the contract. “Ignoring an explicit clause of the contract or acting contrary to the terms of the contract amounts to patent illegality”, the Court held.
Arbitration Clause Allowing MD To Appoint Sole Arbitrator After Failure Of Appointment By Mutual Consent Violates SC's Order: Delhi High Court
Case Title: BALLARPUR INDUSTRIES LIMITED versus SG ENTERPRISES & ORS.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 693
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Jyoti Singh has held that the clause in question indeed contemplates the appointment of an Arbitrator by mutual consent; however, in the event of failure, it vests the power of appointing a Sole Arbitrator with the Managing Director of Respondent No. 1.
It further held that the Company acting through its Managing Director will have interest in the outcome of the dispute and therefore, appointment of Sole Arbitrator will be directly hit by the law laid down by the Supreme Court. Party autonomy as also impartiality and independence of the Arbitrator appointed to adjudicate inter se disputes between the parties are the foundational pillars of arbitration.
'File Movement' & 'Change In Counsel' Not Sufficient Cause For Condonation Of Delay In Filing S.37 Arbitral Appeals: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Union of India v. M/s Rajiv Aggarwal (Engineers and Contractors)
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 695
The Delhi High Court bench comprising Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta has held that mere movement of file and change in counsel due to administrative issues does not constitute “sufficient cause” to condone inordinate delay in filing an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The court reiterated that for appeals under Section 37 that are governed by Articles 116 and 117 of the Limitation Act or Section 13(1-A) of the Commercial Courts Act, a delay beyond 90 days, 30 days or 60 days, respectively, is to be condoned by way of exception and not by way of rule.
Dispute Review Board's Recommendations Are Arbitral Awards, Enforceable U/S 36 Of A&C Act: Delhi High Court
Case Title: M/S. Jaiprakash Hyundai Consortium v. M/S. SJVN Limited
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 679
Inconsequential Errors Cannot Be Grounds To Challenge Judicious & Reasoned Award U/S 34 Of Arbitration Act: Delhi High Court
Case Title: HINDUSTAN HYDRAULICS PVT. LTD versus UNION OF INDIA
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 681
The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Manoj Kunar Ohri has held that the petitioner cannot take advantage of apparent inconsequential errors and fumbles to challenge the award. Inconsequential errors in the award cannot be a ground to challenge otherwise judicious and reasoned award.
The court observed that the respondent did not outrightly reject the machine, when it discovered the basic design deviation, which was pointed out by the RCF in its earliest deficiency list. However, the said deviation was called out consistently in several letters, over the trial run of the machine. Also, the court noted that the respondent expected the petitioner to rectify the defects raised, including the basic design deviation mentioned above, but the same could not be achieved.
Gauhati High Court
Right To Appoint Arbitrator Is Not Automatically Forfeited After Expiry Of 30 Days From Date Of Demand Made By Other Party: Gauhati High Court
Case Title: M/S DRUCKGRAFEN INDIA LIMITED VERSUS THE STATE OF NAGALAND AND 2 ORS
Case Number: Arb.P./4/2024
The Gauhati High Court bench of Justice Yarenjungla Longkumer has held that if an arbitrator is not appointed within 30 days of the demand by the other party, the right to appoint is not automatically forfeited. However, such appointment must be made after the 30-day period but before the other party files an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act.
This is a petition under Sections 11(5) and 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of an arbitrator. The petitioner entered into an agreement dated 01.01.1997 with the Government of Nagaland for printing lottery tickets.
Gujarat High Court
When Court Lacks Jurisdiction To Entertain Application U/S 34 Of Arbitration Act, It Cannot Set Aside Award On Merits: Gujarat High Court
Case Title: YASH TEXTILES Versus VINAYAK FASHIONS
Case Number: R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2507 of 2017
The Gujarat High Court bench of Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice D.N. Ray and has held that Once the Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the Section 34 application—having been filed beyond the limitation prescribed under Section 34(3) and its proviso—any finding on the validity of the arbitral award as void ab initio was without legal authority. Entertaining a time-barred application under Section 34 was a grave error of law on the part of the learned Court. It further said that the respondent argued that the award was a nullity due to the absence of an arbitration agreement and the unilateral appointment of the arbitrator by the Surat Adatiya Kapda Association without their consent. However, these contentions regarding the validity of the arbitral process cannot be entertained because the Section 34 application challenging the award was filed beyond the statutory time limit and is thus barred by limitation.
Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court
J&K High Court Resolves Arbitrator Fee Stalemate, Directs Centre To Deposit Fee As Per 4th Schedule Arbitration Act
Case-Title: Tarmat Ltd. Vs Union of India and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 247
In an order addressing the long-pending stalemate in an arbitration matter, the Jammu and Kashmir High Court directed the Union of India to deposit the arbitrator's fee as per the Fourth Schedule of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, enabling the pronouncement of the arbitral award. The issue before the court was whether a government-prescribed internal fee structure for empanelled arbitrators could override the statutory fee scale in the Fourth Schedule of the 1996 Act. The Court directed the Union of India to deposit its share of the arbitrator's fee with the Registrar Judicial, Jammu within 30 days, to be kept in a fixed deposit, without prejudice to its right to contest the claim in appropriate proceedings later.
Kerala High Court
Party Barred From Taking Plea Of Duress After Accepting Full & Final Settlement Pursuant To Court Order: Kerala High Court
Case Title:THE STATE OF KERALA VERSUS S. AJAYAKUMAR AND ORS.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 368
The Kerela High Court bench of Justice Syam Kumar V.M. and Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari has held that when the payment due to the petitioner was made by the respondent pursuant to a court order explicitly directing it as full and final settlement of all liabilities, and the petitioner also issued a letter accepting the same, he cannot subsequently claim that the letter was issued under duress or out of necessity.
The court noted that The petitioner's writ petition concerned claims under five construction contracts, alleging breach by the respondents. Earlier writ petitions on the same subject were dismissed by this Court on the ground that disputed questions of fact were involved, which required adjudication through civil remedies, not under Article 226. Subsequent writ appeals were also dismissed. Despite this, the petitioner filed the present W.P.(C), seeking directions for payment under Exts. P6 and P10 'awards'.
Case Title: M.I. Mohammed v. M/s. HLL Life Care Ltd. & Ors.
Case Number: AR No. 95 of 2025
The Kerala High Court bench of Justice M.A. Abdul Hakhim has held that where an arbitral award is set aside on the ground that the appointment of the arbitrator was void ab initio and the arbitral proceedings are declared non est, the new arbitrator must initiate proceedings afresh. The question of admissibility of previously recorded evidence is to be decided by the new arbitrator.
Karnataka High Court
Named Arbitrator In Notice U/S 21 Of A&C Act Can't Pass Orders Without Consent Of Other Party Or Order Of Appointment U/S 11: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: Smt. Manjula & Anr. vs. Shriram Transport Finance Co Ltd & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 199
The Karnataka High Court bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj has held that a person who is the named Arbitrator in a notice issued under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, cannot enter reference and pass orders without the other person consenting thereto or without an order of appointment of Arbitrator by institution or a Court under Section 11 of the Act.
The Court noted that neither party placed the arbitration agreement on record. When there was no agreement available on record to indicate the existence or otherwise of an arbitration clause, the question of Shriram relying upon arbitration clause would not arise. Even assuming the arbitration agreement existed, the Court noted that the said clause did not indicate a named Arbitrator. Shriram had issued a notice dated 27-07-2019 nominating Respondent No. 2 as arbitrator. The Court found that there was no consent which was expressed by the Petitioners to the appointment of Respondent No. 2 as the sole Arbitrator. It held that the appointment of the 2nd Respondent as an Arbitrator by Shriram was unilateral and thus not permissible, and the orders passed by the arbitrator were non est.
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ex Parte Order Can Be Recalled If Party Complies With Directions & Legal Issues Require Full Hearing For Proper Adjudication: MP High Court
Case Title: M/S TRICON ENERGY UK LIMITED THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY MR. SANTOSH KOLI Vs M/S KRITI INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LIMITED
Case Number: AC No. 60 of 2024
The Madhya Pradesh High Court bench of Justice Subodh Abhyankar has held that an ex parte order may be recalled when the concerned party appears later, complies with the court's directions, and the matter involves complex legal issues requiring a fair hearing from both sides for an effective adjudication.
The court observed that although the non-applicant was initially proceeded ex-parte, they later appeared, filed detailed objections on maintainability, and complied with the Court's direction to deposit the amount and provide security. Given the complex legal issues involved and in the interest of justice, it was held that the non-applicant should be heard before making the order dated 15.07.2024 absolute, albeit with appropriate costs for initial negligence.
Orissa High Court
Case Title: M/s Odisha Mining Corporation Limited Versus Union of India, Ministry of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises and Ors.
Case Number:W.P.(C) No.22236 OF 2014
The Orissa High Court bench of Justice K.R. Mohapatra has held that once the MSME Council initiates arbitration following the termination of conciliation proceedings, any order passed by the Council regarding its jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute can only be challenged under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The aggrieved party cannot invoke Article 227 of the Constitution to seek setting aside of an award passed under the MSMED Act.
While referring to various judgments, the court held that in Kanwar Singh Saini, it was held that when a statute creates a right and prescribes a specific forum for its enforcement, the remedy must be sought only under that statute. Similarly, in M/s Silpi Industries, the Supreme Court clarified that the MSMED Act, being a special legislation, overrides the Arbitration Act.
It further added that if the claim falls under the MSMED Act, the supplier may approach the designated authority, and any agreement to the contrary is void. The same view was echoed by the Allahabad High Court in Marsons Electrical Industries, stating that MSMED registration applies prospectively and cannot be given retrospective effect. Accordingly, Clause 9.20 of the contract, providing for jurisdiction, stands overridden by the MSMED Act.
Rajasthan High Court
Case Title: The State of Rajasthan, through District Collector Pali. & Ors. vs. Sanwariya Infrastructure Private Limited
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 195
The Rajasthan High Court bench comprising Justice Avneesh Jhingan and Justice Bhuwan Goyal have held that an arbitral award which grants reliefs beyond the express terms of the contract, including compensation for losses and interest where no such entitlement exists under the agreement, is patently illegal and liable to be set aside under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The Court observed that as per the Agreement, the concession period of 70 months was to commence from the "Commencement Date”, which was defined as the date on which the "physical possession of the Project site is delivered by GOR to the concessionaire”. Therefore, the commencement date could only be reckoned from the date of entire possession of the project site and not partial possession.
Arbitration Act | Notice U/S 21 Not Always Necessary If Other Party Was Aware Of Dispute: Rajasthan High Court
Title: Shekharchand Sacheti & Anr. v S.M.F.G. India Home Finance Company Limited & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 205
Rajasthan High Court ruled that since the respondent was already aware of and was not taken by surprise regarding petitioner's invocation of arbitration clause, their plea that the application for appointment of arbitrator was not maintainable since no notice was served under Section 21 of the A&C Act 1996, lacked merit.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand also reiterated the principle laid down in the case of M.D. Frozen Foods Exports Private Limited & others v. Hero Fincorp Limited that the SARFAESI Proceedings were in the nature of enforcement while arbitration was an adjudicatory proceedings. Hence, both could proceed parallel.
The Court was hearing an application under Section 11 of the 1996 Act. The applicants had obtained loan from the respondent by mortgaging a 6318 sq ft of a 12000 sq ft. property under an agreement that had an arbitration clause. Applicant's loan account was classified as a Non-Performing Asset and proceedings under the SARFAESI Act were initiated against them.
Telangana High Court
When Party Questions Validity Of Draft Agreement Containing Arbitration Clause, Reference Can't Be Sought Based On It: Telangana High Court
Case Title:Dr. S. Abhilash vs Prasanth Busareddy
Case Number: CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.692 of 2023
Mere Passage Of Time Does Not Bar Arbitration If Arbitration Clause Remains Valid & Enforceable: Telangana High Court
Case Title: Ch. Punyamurthy vs Union of India
Case Number: ARBITRATION APPLICATION No.180 OF 2024
Whether A Particular Contract Is A Works Contract Under MSME Can't Be Decided Under Writ Jurisdiction: Telangana High Court
Case Title: M/S V.K.A. Constructions vs The State of Telangana
Case Number: WRIT PETITION No.956 OF 2025
In Interconnected Agreements, Use Of Word 'May' Does Not Defeat Clear Intention To Arbitrate In Main Agreement: Telangana High Court
Case Title: Urbanwoods Realty LLP vs Mrs. Uma Rastogi & Another
Case Number: ARBITRATION APPLICATION No.41 OF 2023
Award-Holder Can't Be Denied Withdrawal Of Amount Deposited Pursuant To Stay Merely Because Award Debtor May Succeed In Appeal: Telangana HC
Case Title: M/s Excel Constructions vs M/s Bharat Biotech International Ltd
Case Number: I.A.NO.1 OF 2025 IN/AND CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.1620 OF 2025
When Mandate Of Arbitrator Is Terminated U/S 15 Of Arbitration Act, New Arbitrator Can't Be Appointed By Court U/S 11(6) Of Act: Telangana HC
Case Title: PCL Intertech Lenhydro Consortium vs Punjab National Bank
Case Number: Arbitration Application No.49 of 2024
Case Title: M/S Shriram Life Insurance Company Ltd. vs Mr. Sahil Khan
Case Number: ARBITRATION APPLICATION NOs.182 AND 199 OF 2024
The Telangana High Court bench of Justice K. Lakshman has held that a substitute arbitrator must generally be appointed in the same mode and manner as the original arbitrator. When the appointment of an earlier arbitrator was done under a defective arbitration clause or an unlawful procedure was followed, in such cases a proper recourse is to seek appointment of a new arbitrator under section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The court noted that the Supreme Court in SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Krish Spinning held that in light of the Supreme Court's observations in In Re: Interplay, the Court clarified that at the stage of appointing an arbitrator, the scope of inquiry is confined to a prima facie examination of the existence of an arbitration agreement. Therefore, the broader jurisdiction recognized in Vidya Drolia and NTPC v. SPML—allowing referral courts to reject ex facie non-arbitrable or frivolous disputes—cannot be said to continue post In Re: Interplay.