Supreme Court Arbitration Act | Appellate Courts Can't Reassess Awards, Must Limit Enquiry On Public Policy Breach : Supreme Court Case Title: SOMDATT BUILDERS –NCC – NEC(JV) VERSUS NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA & ORS. Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 115 The Supreme Court reaffirmed that arbitral awards should only be interfered with in cases of...
Supreme Court
Arbitration Act | Appellate Courts Can't Reassess Awards, Must Limit Enquiry On Public Policy Breach : Supreme Court
Case Title: SOMDATT BUILDERS –NCC – NEC(JV) VERSUS NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA & ORS.
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 115
The Supreme Court reaffirmed that arbitral awards should only be interfered with in cases of perversity, violation of public policy, or patent illegality. It emphasized that appellate courts cannot reassess the merits of awards and must limit their inquiry to whether the award breaches Section 34(2)(b)(ii) of the Arbitration Act i.e., if the award is against the public policy of India.
The bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan was hearing the case where the dispute arose concerning increased quantities of geogrid required for constructing a reinforced earth (RE) wall as part of a road construction project. NHAI claimed that increased quantities beyond those stated in the Bill of Quantities (BOQ) warranted renegotiation of rates.
High Courts
Allahabad High Court
[S.16 Arbitration Act] Jurisdiction Of Tribunal Cannot Be Challenged After Submission Of Defence: Allahabad High Court
Case Title: M/S. Arya Rice Mill v. State Of U.P. And 6 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 42 [WRIT - C No. - 41517 of 2024]
Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 42
The Allahabad High Court has held that as per Section 16(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the jurisdiction of an arbitral tribunal cannot be challenged after submission of defence and that the arbitral tribunal is empowered to adjudicate on its own jurisdiction.
The bench of Justice Siddhartha Varma and Dr. Justice Yogendra Kumar Srivastava held
“Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 provides for challenge to the jurisdictional authority of the Arbitral Tribunal. In terms of sub-section (2) thereof, a plea that the arbitral tribunal does not have jurisdiction should be raised not later than the submission of the defence. If the excess of jurisdiction crops up during the proceedings, the objection should be made at that very time. In any case, objection on the question of jurisdiction has to be made before the arbitral tribunal itself, and the arbitral tribunal has the power to rule on its own jurisdiction.”
Bombay High Court
Court Cannot Assume Jurisdiction To Appoint Arbitrator Unless Request For Reference Of Dispute Is Received By Respondent: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Sri Sathe Infracon Private Limited v. M/s Rudranee Infrastructure Ltd. & another (ARBITRATION APPLICATION NO. 9 OF 2024)
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 36
The Bombay High Court bench of Justice R. M. Joshi has held that compliance with Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is mandatory and that the court cannot assume jurisdiction to appoint an Arbitrator under Section 11 unless a request for a reference of dispute is received by the respondent.
Here in this case, parties have agreed that before referring the dispute to arbitration, an amicable settlement must be attempted. In light of the agreement between parties, it is necessary to see whether there is compliance with this provision. Additionally, the court noted that it was specifically stated in the notice dated 28.03.2023 that the applicant had no intention of going into uncalled arbitration and had asked for an amicable settlement. It was also stated that if the date for amicable settlement is not communicated in 15 days, it shall be presumed that there is no possibility of settlement and in this situation, the Arbitrator came to be appointed. After this communication, there were settlement talks between the parties to resolve disputes between them amicably.
While Commercial Speech Falls Within Free Speech, Contract Prohibit Adverse Remarks: Bombay HC Imposes 90-Day Injunction On Wonderchef's Distributor
Case Title: Wonderchef Home Appliances Pvt. Ltd. vs Shree Swaminarayanan Pty Ltd. (Commercial Arbitration Petition 791 of 2024)
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 40
Observing that commercial speech is a part of 'free speech' guaranteed by the Constitution of India, the Bombay High Court imposed a 90-day injunction against an Australia-based distributor of Wonderchef Home Appliances, owned by Celebrity Chef Sanjeev Kapoor, from making any comments or communications which could harm the reputation of the company, due to a contractual clause preventing them from doing so.
Single-judge Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan while imposing the injunction, also ordered Wonderchef to invoke Arbitration proceedings under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
"It would be necessary for me to record that commercial speech is eminently part of free speech. It is not easy for a Court to prohibit a party from expressing itself about its grievances about a product acquired in the course of commerce, since the factors to be borne in mind when considering a request for a gag order, is to see if such expression is truthful and warranted. Merely because speech is made in a commercial context, it would not cease to have the ingredients of free expression," the judge said in the order passed on January 27.
Calcutta High Court
[S.12A Commercial Courts Act] Pre-Institution Mediation Is Intended To Encourage Parties To Use Litigation As Last Resort: Calcutta HC
Case Title: Asa International India Microfinance Ltd. v. Northern ARC Capital Ltd. & Anr.
Case Number: FMAT 3 of 2025 with IA No. CAN 1 of 2025 CAN 2 of 2025
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Biswaroop Chowdhury has held that the clear intent of Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 is to encourage parties to use litigation as a last resort and to resolve commercial disputes amicably, informally, cheaply and quickly under the process of mediation. Additionally, the court modified the interim relief to the effect that upon the appellant making payment of Rs.2 crores and filing an affidavit of assets and schedule of payments respectively for other creditors. The appellant shall be permitted to utilize the rest of the amounts injuncted by the impugned order.
Delhi High Court
When Counter-Claim Is Related To Primary Dispute, It Can Be Filed Before Tribunal U/S 23 Of Arbitration Act: Delhi High Court
Case Title: M/S. Akn Developers Private Limited v. M/S. Premsons Southend
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 96
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Manoj Jain has held that while any counter-claim may relate to a different cause of action, it can still stem from a primary dispute between the parties. Thus, the court held that the governing factor would be to see whether it has any connection with the original dispute or is isolated and separable. For all purposes, the court observed that the counter-claim in this case was, directly or indirectly, related to the primary dispute between the parties and the claim in question. Additionally, the court held that if there is a strong interconnectivity or linkage between the two i.e. claim and counter-claim, these can be assumed to be a part of the same transaction.
Case Title: HALA KAMEL ZABAL versus ARYA TRADING LTD. & ORS.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 102
The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar has held that the appointment of the Arbitrator in an International Commercial Arbitration (“ICA”) by the Chief Justice of the High Court, does not vitiate the impugned award.The bench held that the objection to the appointment of the arbitrator should have been raised during the arbitration proceedings. Since the parties failed to do so, they were deemed to have waived their right to object.
The examination of the impugned award hinges on whether the award is vitiated due to the alleged illegality in the appointment of the arbitrator, particularly concerning Issue (3), which would only be pertinent if the award is already compromised due to such illegality. Regarding Issue (1), the appointment of the arbitrator, it was determined that it was not in accordance with the 1996 Act, as Section 11(6) clearly mandates that in the case of an ICA, the arbitrator must be appointed by the Supreme Court. However, in this instance, the appointment was made by the Chief Justice of the High Court, rendering the appointment technically flawed.
Gauhati High Court
Mere Existence Of Arbitration Clause In Agreement Does Not Oust Jurisdiction Of Civil Court To Entertain Suit: Gauhati High Court
Case Title: M/S J.M.B. CONSTRUCTION AND 2 ORS. VERSUS DR. SOMESH DHAR AND 3 ORS.
Case Number:Arb.A./8/2024
The Gauhati High Court bench of Justice Malasri Nandi has held that merely because there is an arbitration clause providing for referring the dispute and the claim to the arbitration, the civil court's jurisdiction is not barred but the same is subject to Section 8 of the Arbitration Act, 1996.
The court noted that in S.Vanathan Muthuraja vs. Ramalingam @ Krishnamurthy Gurukkal & Ors., (1997) the Supreme Court held that when a legal right is infringed, a civil suit would lie unless entertainment of such suit is specifically barred. The normal rule is that a civil court would have jurisdiction to entertain all suits of a civil nature except those whose cognizance is either explicitly or by implication is barred. It also relied on the Supreme Court judgment in ITI Ltd. vs. Siemens Public Communications Network Ltd., (2002) where it was held that application of the code is not specifically prohibited when it comes to proceedings arising out of the Act before the court.
Karnataka High Court
Double Payment For Same Claim Violates Public Policy U/S 34 Of Arbitration Act: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE v. M/S ASHOKA BIOGREEN PVT. LTD.
Case Number: COMMERCIAL APPEAL No. 427 OF 2024
The Karnataka High Court Bench of Chief Justice N. V. Anjaria and Justice K. V. Aravind held that the issue of double payment for the same claim would undoubtedly be in direct conflict with the Public Policy of India and would violate the Fundamental Policy of Indian Law, as well as the basic principles of morality and justice.
The court relied on the judgment in MMTC Limited Vs. Vedanta Limited (2019), wherein the court held that jurisdiction under Section 37 of the Act is akin to the jurisdiction of the Court under Section 34 of the Act. While entertaining an appeal under Section 37 of the Act, the interference is restricted and subject to the grounds enumerated in Section 34 of the Act.
Kerala High Court
Notice To Appoint Another Arbitrator To Continue Arbitration Proceedings Satisfies Mandate Of S.21Of A&C Act: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Unnimoidu v. Muhammad Iqbal
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 67
The Kerala High Court bench of Justice Syam Kumar V.M., while hearing a Section 11 petition, has held that a notice to revive a stalled arbitration proceedings by appointing another arbitrator satisfies the mandate of Section 21 of the A&C Act.
The court observed that the questions relating to the validity of the partnership agreement cannot be looked into by a referral court. The Supreme Court in SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Krish Spinning (2024) has limited the scope of the referral court to ascertain whether a Section 11 application has been filed within three years. The court cannot go into the arbitrability of the dispute, and such questions are for the tribunal to adjudicate.
Writ Petition Maintainable If Arbitrator Refuses To Entertain Application U/S 3G(5) Of National Highways Act: Kerala High Court
Case Title: P.V. George v. National Highway Authority of India And Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 70
The Kerala High Court bench of A. Muhamed Mustaque and S. Manu JJ. while hearing a writ petition has held that when an arbitrator appointed by the Central Government refuses to entertain an application u/s 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956, the Courts can entertain a petition under Article 226 to the limited extent of referring the dispute to arbitration.
Court noted that the arbitral proceedings commenced on the date on which a Section 21 notice requesting the dispute to be referred to arbitration was received by the respondent. Any decision made prior to the commencement of the proceedings cannot be treated as an award. The definition of decree under the Code of Civil Procedure provides guidance to the types of decisions that can be qualified as an award.
Section 3G(5) places a statutory obligation upon the District Collector, who acts as an arbitrator, to receive applications for adjudication of disputes relating to the determination of compensation.
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.
Orissa High Court
Appeal In Commercial Dispute Arising From Arbitration Act Must Be Filed Before Commercial Appellate Court, Not HC: Orissa High Court
Case Title: M/s. Jaycee Housing Private v. Neelachal Buildtech & Resorts Pvt.
Case Number: ARBA No.7 of 2024
The Orissa High Court bench of Justice S.K. Panigrahi has held that a plain reading of Sections 6 and 10(3) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, leads to the conclusion that the appropriate 'court' to consider a commercial dispute, even if it arises under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, would be the commercial court and an appeal would, therefore, lie only before the Commercial Appellate Court being the District Court.