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.
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.
Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court
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'.
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.
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
The Telangana High Court bench of Sri Justice P. Sam Koshy and Sri Justice N. Tukaramji has held that when a party, in its reply to a Section 8 petition under the Arbitration Act, has expressly denied the existence or validity of the agreements containing the arbitration clause by terming them null and void, such agreements cannot subsequently be relied upon by the same party as the basis to seek reference of the disputes to arbitration.
The court at the outset noted that Section 8 of the Arbitration Act mandates that a judicial authority must refer parties to arbitration if there exists a valid arbitration agreement and one of the parties applies for reference before submitting their first substantive statement. To determine the existence of such an agreement, Section 7 becomes relevant. It defines an arbitration agreement as a written agreement to submit disputes to arbitration, either as a clause in a contract or a separate agreement.