High Courts Bombay High Court 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...
High Courts
Bombay High Court
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.
Delhi High Court
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 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.
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.
Kerala High Court
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.
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.
Telangana High Court
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
The Telangana High Court bench of Justice K Lakshman has held that mere passage of time does not bar arbitration if the arbitration clause remains valid. The Limitation for the purpose of filing the application under section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act commences from the date when request for initiating arbitration is rejected. It further observed that in Aslam Ismail Khan Deshmukh v. ASAP Fluids Pvt. Ltd., the Supreme Court held that the limitation period for initiating arbitration commences from the date of rejection of the arbitration request. As the respondents rejected the applicant's request on 25.07.2022, the present petition is well within the limitation period.
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
The Telangana High Court bench of Justice K. Lakshman has held that the question of whether a particular contract is a works contract or not is for the MSME Council to decide, and the dispute cannot be decided under writ jurisdiction.
The court noted that in National Thermal Power Corpn. Ltd. v. Siemens Atkeingesellschaft (2007) the Supreme Court held that if the arbitral tribunal decides its jurisdiction under Section 16 and holds that it has no jurisdiction, then such order is appealable.
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
The Telangana High Court bench of Justice K. Lakshman has held that in case of interconnected agreements, where the mother agreement clearly and unequivocally refers the disputes to arbitration, mere use of 'may' in the arbitration clause of one of the ancillary agreements will not defeat the intention to arbitrate.
The court noted that the Supreme Court in Interplay Between Arbitration Agreements under Arbitration, 1996 & Stamp Act, 1899, In re held that the Referral Court at Section 11 stage should not examine or impound an unstamped or insufficiently stamped instrument, but rather leave it for the determination by the Arbitral Tribunal. Any objections in relation to the stamping of the agreement fall within the ambit of the Arbitral Tribunal. It further noted that in SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Krish Spinning the Supreme Court held that with the enactment of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the doctrine of separability was expressly recognized.
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
The Telangana High Court bench of Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice B.R. Madhusudhan Raohas has held that the award holder can be allowed to withdraw the amount deposited by the award debtor in pursuance of stay on the execution of the award. The award holder cannot be prohibited from withdrawing the amount only on the ground that the award debtor may succeed in the appeal under section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
It further noted that as it stands, the Award-holder has not received the benefit of the Award dated 19.09.2017, even after nearly 8 years, due to the stay on its execution. Despite the respondent depositing ₹1,18,50,000 (50% of the Award amount), the Award-holder has not been allowed to withdraw any portion of it. The court further observed that the Award-holder now seeks permission to withdraw ₹59,25,000 (25% of the Award amount) and is willing to furnish security for the remaining 25%, effectively seeking access to only half of the deposited amount while securing the balance.
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
The Telangana High Court bench of Justice N.V. Shravan Kumar has held that when the mandate of an arbitrator terminates under Section 15 of the Arbitration Act, a substitute arbitrator must be appointed in accordance with the original procedure agreed upon by the parties. In such cases, the court cannot appoint a new arbitrator under Section 11, as the appropriate course is to appoint a substitute following the mechanism under Section 15(2), not initiate a fresh appointment process.
The court noted that in the Applicant's letter dated 19.06.2020, the Bank was informed that the purpose of the Escrow Agreement had been fulfilled and was requested to take necessary steps to prevent further unintended transactions, along with submitting transaction details for record-keeping.
It further added that however, the letter contained no explicit direction to close the Escrow Account. In contrast, Respondent No.3's letter dated 25.06.2020 clearly instructed closure of the account, citing fulfillment of purpose and requesting termination of the Escrow Agreement under Clause 13.3.