Sec 34(3) Arbitration Act | Application Filed On Next Working Day After 90 Day Period Is Within Limitation : Supreme Court

Case Title: M/S R. K. TRANSPORT COMPANY VERSUS M/S BHARAT ALUMINUM COMPANY LTD. (BALCO)

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 391

A bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Prashant Kumar Mishra held that the three-month limitation period under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Arbitration Act”) for challenging an arbitral award should not be rigidly interpreted as exactly 90 days, rather it should be interpreted as three calendar months. The Court upheld the filing of an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act on 11.07.2022 to set aside an arbitral award passed on 09.04.2022, despite it being beyond the 90-day period. It noted that the limitation period ended on 09.07.2022, which was a court holiday (second Saturday), followed by Sunday. Therefore, the application filed on the next working day, Monday (11.07.2022), was held to be within limitation.
Relying on State of Himachal Pradesh v. Himachal Techno Engineers, (2010) 12 SCC 210 and applying Section 12 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the Court reiterated that for calculating limitation under Section 34(3), the date on which the arbitral award is passed must be excluded. Accordingly, the limitation period begins from the day following the date of the award.

Supreme Court Holds Chandigarh Authorities Liable For Delay In Film City Project, Directs Refund Of 47.75 Crores To Successful Bidder

Case Title: M/s. PARSVNATH FILM CITY LTD. VERSUS CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION & OTHERS, CIVIL APPEAL NO.6162 OF 2016 (and connected case)

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 422

In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court largely upheld an arbitral award passed in favor of a company engaged by the Chandigarh Administration to establish a Multimedia-cum-Film City in the Union Territory, holding the authorities liable to refund a forfeited bid amount of Rs.47.75 crores. A bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma delivered the verdict, being of the view that the Punjab and Haryana High Court wrongly set aside the arbitral award. It opined that though time was of the essence to the project sought to be developed, there was a clear and unreasonable delay (of over 16 months) attributable to the authorities in handing over encumbrance-free land to the appellant-Company.

Arbitral Tribunal Can Proceed Against Party Though They Weren't Served With S.21 Notice Or Made Party In S.11 Application : Supreme Court

Case Title: ADAVYA PROJECTS PVT. LTD. VERSUS M/S VISHAL STRUCTURALS PVT. LTD. & ORS., CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5297 OF 2025

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 439

The Supreme Court recently observed that not being served with the notice invoking arbitration under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, and not being made a party in the Section 11 application (for appointment of arbitrator), are not sufficient grounds to hold that a person cannot be made party to arbitral proceedings.

"A notice invoking arbitration under Section 21 of the ACA is mandatory...and it is a prerequisite to filing an application under Section 11. However, merely because such a notice was not issued to certain persons who are parties to the arbitration agreement does not denude the arbitral tribunal of its jurisdiction to implead them as parties during the arbitral proceedings...merely because a court does not refer a certain party to arbitration in its order does not denude the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal from impleading them during the arbitral proceedings as the referral court's view does not finally determine this issue. The relevant consideration to determine whether a person can be made a party before the arbitral tribunal is if such a person is a party to the arbitration agreement", said a bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Manoj Misra.

Supreme Court Flags Long Submissions In S.34/37 Arbitration Act Proceedings, Says Timelimit Needs To Be Imposed

Case Title: LARSEN AND TOUBRO LTD. VERSUS PURI CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. & ORS.

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 449

On April 21, the Supreme Court expressed its displeasure over the prolonged arguments and submissions made by members of the Bar in arbitration proceedings under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

The Court noted that excessively long oral submissions force judges to invest significant time in reviewing extended arguments, often supported by a large volume of case law, regardless of their relevance. This practice, particularly in high-stakes matters, leads to unnecessarily lengthy judgments and ultimately undermines the efficiency and growth of arbitration as an effective dispute resolution mechanism in India.

“We have noticed that there is a tendency on the part of senior members of the bar to argue as if these proceedings were regular appeals under Section 96 of CPC. In this case, while making submissions, we learned counsels for both the parties have gone into minute and factual details…”, the bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and Pankaj Mithal said.

Arbitral Award For Claims Not Included In IBC Resolution Plan Can't Be Enforced: Supreme Court

Case Title – Electrosteel Steel Limited (Now M/S ESL Steel Limited) vs Ispat Carrier Private Limited

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 491

The Supreme Court recently allowed an appeal challenging the enforcement of an arbitral award passed by the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council (MSEFC) against Electrosteel Steels Ltd., holding that the award was non-executable in view of the resolution plan approved under Section 31 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016.

“we have no hesitation to hold that upon approval of the resolution plan by the NCLT, the claim of the respondent being outside the purview of the resolution plan stood extinguished. Therefore, the award dated 06.07.2018 is incapable of being executed”, the Court said.

A bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan reiterated that once a resolution plan is approved by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) under Section 31(1) of the IBC, any claim that is not part of the plan stands extinguished and cannot be pursued further.

S.34 Arbitration Act | Respect Arbitral Autonomy; Judicial Interference Should Be Minimal : Supreme Court

Case Title: CONSOLIDATED CONSTRUCTION CONSORTIUM LIMITED VERSUS SOFTWARE TECHNOLOGY PARKS OF INDIA

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 501

The Supreme Court reiterated that the courts cannot go beyond the scope of Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Arbitration Act”) while deciding an application for setting aside of an award.

"the role of the court under Section 34 of the 1996 Act is clearly demarcated. It is a restrictive jurisdiction and has to be invoked in a conservative manner. The reason is that arbitral autonomy must be respected and judicial interference should remain minimal otherwise it will defeat the very object of the 1996 Act.”, the court added.
Holding thus, the bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan upheld the Madras High Court Division Bench's ruling, which had overturned the Single Judge's interference with the tribunal's decision based on a re-evaluation of the evidence.

Courts Can Modify Arbitral Awards In Certain Circumstances Under S.34/37 Arbitration Act: Supreme Court By 4:1

Case Details : GAYATRI BALASAMY Versus M/S ISG NOVASOFT TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED| SLP(C) No. 15336-15337/2021

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 508

Answering a reference, a Constitution Bench (by 4:1) of the Supreme Court held that Appellate Courts have limited powers to modify arbitral awards while exercising powers under either Section 34 or 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

The majority judgment by Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna held that the Courts have a limited power under Section 34/37 to modify arbitral awards. This limited power can be exercised in the following circumstances :

1. When the award is severable by separating the invalid portion from the valid portion of the award.

2. To correct any clerical, computation or typographical errors which appear erroneous on the face of the record.

3. To modify post-award interest in some circumstances.

4. The special powers of the Supreme Court under Article 142 of the Constitution can be applied to modify awards. But this power must be exercised with great caution within the limits of the Constitution.

High Courts

Allahabad High Court

No Automatic Stay On Award Upon Filing Of Appeal U/S 34 Within Time: Allahabad High Court Reiterates

Case Title: M/s LR Print Solutions v. M/s Exflo Sanitation Pvt Ltd. and 2 others

Case Number: MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 8387 of 2024

Following the judgment of the Supreme Court in Board of Control for Cricket in India Vs. Kochi Cricket Pvt. Ltd. and others and Hindustan Construction Company Limited and others Vs. Union of India and others, the Allahabad High Court has reiterated that automatic stay on the operation of arbitral award is not granted merely by filing appeal under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 2016.

In Board of Control for Cricket in India Vs. Kochi Cricket Pvt. Ltd. and others, the Apex Court has held that Section 36 does not automatically guarantee stay on the arbitral award when the application under Section 34 of the Act has been filed within time. It was also held that amended Section 36 should apply to Section 34 applications filed before the commencement of the Amendment Act. However, this position was clarified by the Apex Court in M/s Shree Vishnu Constructions. Vs. The Engineer in Chief Military Engineering Services and others, where it was held that the Section 36 will apply prospectively, i.e., the proceedings under Section 24 which have commenced after the amendment.

Bombay High Court

Tenants Occupying Premises Which Fall Under Development Agreement Cannot Be Evicted U/S 9 Of Arbitration Act: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Ambit Urbanspace Versus Poddar Apartment Co-operative Housing Society Limited & Ors (COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION PETITION (L) NO.38696 OF 2024)

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 127

The Bombay High Court bench of Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan has held that Eviction of tenants governed by the Rent Control Act cannot be sought under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act), particularly when they are not parties to the Development Agreement executed between the Developer and the Landlords and are not being provided upgraded premises in the redeveloped building compared to what they currently occupy under the tenancy agreements.

The Court further added that only jurisdictional forums under the Rent Control Act have the authority to determine issues related to tenancy. It rejected the Landlords' assertions of violations by the Tenants and held that proceedings under section 9 of the Arbitration Act should not be used as a backdoor method for eviction especially when no eviction action was taken over two decades that too on facts within the knowledge of the Landlords. The court also observed that a measure taken under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act ought not to conflict with special protective provisions in ameliorative legislation such as the Rent Act.

Bombay High Court Directs Developer Of Lodha Worli Towers To Collect Maintenance At Rate Agreed Upon Between Parties Until Arbitral Proceedings Are Completed

Case Title:Santanu Sengupta & Ors. Versus Macrotech Developers Ltd.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 132

The Bombay High Court bench of Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan the developer of Lodha World Towers in a petition filed under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) has been directed to charge the Federation Common Area Maintenance (FCAM) Charges at the rate agreed upon in the agreement executed between the parties, until the arbitral proceedings are completed.

The court observed that it is unclear how Macrotech could assert that the rate of Rs. 4.5 per square foot as contracted at the launch of the project could escalate to Rs. 9.92 per square foot, applying even the highest inflation of 10% per annum, when the FCAM Charges were made applicable only from October 2017. It further added that at the rate of 10% per annum, the escalation would come to Rs. 0.45 per annum and at that simple rate for eight years (although eight years would be completed only in October 2025) the aggregate increase would come to Rs. 3.6 per square foot, which would add up to Rs. 8.10 per square foot.

Limitation Cannot Be Decided As Preliminary Issue Without Recording Whether It Is A Mixed Question Of Law And Fact: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Urban Infrastructure Real Estate Fund Versus Neelkanth Realty Private Ltd. & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 134

The Bombay High Court bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice M.S. Karnik has held that an arbitrator is not permitted to decide the issue of limitation as a preliminary issue without first recording a finding as to whether it is a mixed question of law and fact that requires evidence to be led. It further held that if such a finding is not recorded and the issue is nonetheless decided as a preliminary issue, the award can be set aside under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) on the ground of violation of the fundamental policy of Indian law.

No Bar On Arbitrator To Allow Withdrawal Of Claims Provided Legitimate Interests Of Other Party Are Not Prejudiced: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Central Depositories Services (India) Limited. Vs. Ketan Lalit Shah and Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 144

The Bombay High Court bench of Justices Revati Mohite Dere and Dr. Neela Gokhale has held that the arbitrator can allow the parties to withdraw their claims to initiate fresh arbitration proceedings by issuing a new notice of arbitration, provided that the legitimate interests of the other party are not prejudiced.

The court noted that the Delhi High Court in IDFC First Bank Limited v. Hitachi MGRM Net Limited (2023) held that an arbitral tribunal is subject to writ jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution; however, the exercise of such powers is limited to exceptional circumstances. The non-obstante clause in Section 5 of the Arbitration Act does not override the constitutional powers under Article 227.

The court in the above case also held that interference is warranted only when the order is patently perverse or lacks inherent jurisdiction. Courts must discourage unnecessary interference in the arbitral process, as excessive judicial intervention undermines its efficiency. Therefore, the exercise of writ jurisdiction should be reserved for rare cases, particularly where bad faith is evident.

Based on the above, the court observed that the claims were that of the Respondents. When the Arbitral Tribunal declined to allow an amendment to the claims on the ground that the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal was nearing expiry in May 2024 it offered the claimants two options.

Statutory Protection Under Maharashtra Rent Control Act Can't Be Circumvented By Invoking Arbitration Petition To Seek 'Speedy Eviction': High Court

Case Title: SJK Buildcon LLP vs. Kusum Pandurang Keni & Ors (Commercial Arbitration Petition (L) No. 20834 of 2024)

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 148

The Bombay High Court bench of Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan has held that the jurisdiction under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“the Act”) cannot be invoked to circumvent the statutory protection afforded to tenants under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (“Rent Act”). Interim measures under Section 9 must aid arbitral proceedings and cannot override or conflict with special statutory mechanisms under the Rent Act for eviction and redevelopment. The Court observed that issues involving protected tenants must be adjudicated by the Small Causes Court under Section 33 of the Rent Act, which is a non-obstante provision. Section 9 of the Act cannot be used to seek relief of 'speedy eviction' where tenancy rights are upheld by a binding decree.

Unless Serious Allegations Of Fraud Are Established, Parties Cannot Be Denied Reference To Arbitration U/S 8 Of A&C Act: Bombay HC

Case Title: Bholashankar Ramsuresh Dubey Versus Dinesh Narayan Tiwari and Ors. (WRIT PETITION NO. 17174 OF 2024)

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 149

The Bombay High Court bench of Justice N. J. Jamadar has held that the dispute cannot be refused referral to arbitration under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) based solely on mere allegations of fraud simpliciter, unless serious allegations of fraud that go to the root of the partnership deed containing the arbitration clause are established.

The Supreme Court in Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. V/s. Cherian Varkey Construction Co. (P) Ltd (2011) held that the following categories of cases are generally considered unsuitable for the ADR process due to their nature.Cases involving serious and specific allegations of fraud, fabrication of documents, forgery, impersonation, or coercion and cases involving prosecution for criminal offences.

The court also noted that the Supreme Court in A. Ayyasamy V. A. Paramasivam (2016) held that It follows that cases involving serious allegations of fraud—especially those resembling criminal offences, involving complex issues requiring detailed evidence, or challenging the validity of the contract or arbitration clause itself are non-arbitrable and should be decided by civil courts. The Apex Court cautioned that however, mere or simpliciter allegations of fraud that pertain only to internal disputes between parties and do not affect the public domain do not nullify the arbitration agreement, and such matters can be referred to arbitration.

Objections To Terms Of Redevelopment Agreement Can't Be Adjudicated By Court U/S 9 Of Arbitration Act: Bombay HC

Case Title: Elite Housing LLP Versus The Spectrum CHS Ltd. (COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION PETITION NO.155 OF 2025)

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 151

The Bombay High Court bench of Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan has held that objections related to the terms of the redevelopment agreement raised by members of the society can be decided only by the appropriate forum having jurisdiction over such issues. These matters cannot be adjudicated under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act).

The court at the outset noted that the redevelopment is stalled solely due to unresolved disputes over two flats Flat No. 6 and Flat No. 12 among family members. While objections regarding entitlements and procedural lapses have been raised, these are to be addressed by appropriate regulatory or quasi-judicial authorities. The core issue remains the absence of documentation for the two flats, which is unjustifiably halting the entire project.

Unilateral Option To Terminate Arbitration Agreement Does Not Render It Illegal: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Tata Capital Limited v. Vijay Devij Aiya (COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION APPLICATION NO. 237 AND 243 OF 2024)

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 158

The Bombay High Court Bench of Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan while disposing an application for appointment of arbitrator has observed that an arbitration clause which gives option to only one party to opt out of the arbitration agreement is not invalid per se. Such arbitration agreement can be saved by eliminating the unilateral option or by making such right bilateral.

The Court discussed the context in which the Tata Capital judgment was decided by the Delhi High Court. The context was of the borrower having filed a suit and the lender having asserted the right to file a written statement. On being denied that right, the lender appealed and secured its right to file the written statement. After securing such right, the lender argued that no civil suit would lie. It was in the context of such provocative and irreconcilable conduct that the court ruled that there was an absence of mutuality which was fatal to the agreement. The Court observed that the ruling on absence of mutuality rendering the arbitration agreement to be illegal should be read in this context and not in absolute terms.

Deletion Of Names Through Chamber Summons Does Not Render Appeal U/S 50(1)(B) Of A&C Act As Not Maintainable: Bombay High Court

Case Title – IMAX Corporation v. E-City Entertainment (I) Pvt. Ltd. and Others (Commercial Arbitration Appeal (L) No. 38267 of 2024)

Citation – 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 162

The Bombay High Court bench of Justices A.S. Chandurkar and M.M. Sathaye has observed that when a common arbitration petition seeking recognition, enforcement and execution of a foreign award is declined against all the respondents, the mere fact that some respondents had successfully filed chamber summons seeking deletion of their names would not render the appeal filed under Section 50(1)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 as not maintainable.

The Court placed reliance on the judgments of the Apex Court in M/s Fuerst Day Lawson v. Jindal Exports Ltd. (2001) 6 SCC 356 and Government of India v. Vedanta Limited and Others (2010) 10 SCC 1 to discuss the proposition of law that while seeking enforcement of foreign award, there is no need to take separate proceedings, one for deciding the enforceability of the foreign award to make it rule of the court and another to take up execution thereafter.

Bombay HC Dismisses Appeal Against Order U/S 9 Of Arbitration Act Injuncting Owner Of Kapani Resorts From Disposing Of Interest In Properties

Case Title: Kapani Resorts Private Limited Parsha V/s. Manmohan Kapani

Case Number:2025:BHC-OS:7019

The Bombay High Court bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe And Justice M. S. Karnik has upheld the order passed by the Single Judge under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act), injuncting the owner of the Kailash property and Kapani Resorts from alienating or disposing of any interest in the properties until the completion of the arbitral proceedings.

Arbitrator Cannot Be Substituted U/S 29A(6) Of A&C Act Unless Grounds Mentioned U/S 14 & 15 Are Satisfied: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Indiabulls Infraestate Ltd. Versus Imagine Realty Pvt. Ltd.

Case Number: 2025:BHC-OS:6783

The Bombay High Court bench of Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan has held that even though the term "substitution" is mentioned under Section 29-A(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act), an arbitrator cannot be substituted in an application under this section unless the grounds specified in Sections 14 and 15 of the Arbitration Act are satisfied, which outline the conditions under which an arbitrator may be substituted.

Calcutta High Court

Composite Reference Of Disputes From Distinct Purchase Orders To Arbitration Is Valid When Parties' Conduct Indicates Single Transaction: Calcutta HC

Case Title: M/S. Sauryajyoti Renewables Pvt.Ltd. Vs VSL Re Power Private Limited

Case Number: AP/COM- 63 Of 2025

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar has held that a composite reference of disputes to arbitration arising out of distinct purchase and service orders can be made when the conduct of the parties demonstrates that they were all part of a single business transaction.

The court further observed that a composite invocation under 21 of the Arbitration Act for the consolidated claim of the petitioner regarding purchase and service orders as well as the challenge to their termination by the respondent was valid. The invocation clearly outlines the details of the orders and the nature of disputes. Email communications further show that both parties consistently treated the purchase and service orders as part of the same business relationship.

Court Can Decline To Refer Dispute To Arbitration When Time-Barred Claim Is Evident From Record: Calcutta High Court

Case Title: SRI SWAPAN PAUL VS M/S. PAUL CONSTRUCTION

Case Number: AP NO. 28 OF 2025

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar has held that when a claim is ex facie time-barred and no trial is needed to determine whether it is barred by limitation, the referral court can refuse to refer the matter to arbitration under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act).

The Supreme Court in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and Another vs. Nortel Networks India Private Limited (2021) while observing that although the arbitration petition was not barred by limitation, yet the cause of action for the underlying claims having arisen much earlier, the claims were clearly barred by limitation on the day notice for arbitration was invoked.

Directions For Refund Of Consideration With Interest Must Be Considered Based On Conduct Of Parties During Arbitral Proceedings: Calcutta HC

Case: DEEPAK BHARGAVA & ORS. VS. JAGRATI TRADE SERVICES PVT. LTD. & ORS.

Case No: AP-COM/388/2024

The Calcutta High Court has held that in arbitral proceedings, the direction for refund of the deposited consideration amount with interest has to be considered in the background of the conduct of the parties and their admissions during the proceedings.

A division bench of Justices Soumen Sen and Biswaroop Chowdury held:

The learned arbitrator rejected the claim for specific performance of the contract as claimed by the present appellants. However, the appellants were directed to refund the sum of Rs.19.90 crores (approximately) which was admittedly received by the appellants from the claimants towards consideration. Interest was also granted on the same...The direction for refund of the amount with interest has to be considered in the background of the conduct of the parties and their admissions in the proceeding. The proceeding before an arbitrator is not a proceeding before a court of law. An element of informality is attached to such proceeding and the views of the arbitrator as appear from the award is required to be considered in the said perspective and keeping in mind the immunity that an award enjoys under the Act.

Arbitration Clause Contained In Incomplete Memorandum Of Understanding Cannot Form Basis For Arbitration Proceedings: Calcutta HC

Case Title: M/S GREENBILT INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED VS M/S A B DINESH CONCRETE PRIVATE LIMITED

Case Number:AP (COM) 421 of 2024

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar has held that an arbitration clause in a memorandum of understanding that was not finalized, as indicated by the correspondences between the parties, cannot serve as the basis for initiating arbitration proceedings. The court further said that the MOU remained in draft form without essential details which made it incomplete. Even if lack of response of the petitioner to the e-mail sent through which the draft MOU was communicated is accepted, there was no agreement to confer jurisdiction to the court at Calcutta as the cause of action arose in Odisha and Raipur/Chhattisgarh.

Clause Empowering Contract Signatories To Resolve Disputes Does Not Constitute A Valid Arbitration Agreement Due To Lack Of Impartiality: Calcutta HC

Case Title:Balasore Alloys Limited vs. Flynt Mining LLP

Case Number: AP-COM/896/2024

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar has held that merely because a dispute resolution mechanism is provided in a clause empowering the signatories to the contract to resolve the dispute, it cannot be inferred that the parties intended to refer the dispute to arbitration. Such a clause amounts to an in-house mechanism and not a reference to an impartial arbitral tribunal, especially when impartiality is clearly lacking as the very individuals who signed the contract are themselves empowered to decide the dispute.

The court at the outset observed that the clause 16 of the Agreement, though does not mention the word "arbitration," does not become invalid solely on that ground. If the dispute resolution clause reflects a clear intention of the parties to refer disputes to a private tribunal for an impartial decision after providing both parties a fair opportunity to present their case and if they have agreed to be bound by such decision, it would constitute a valid arbitration agreement despite the absence of the word "arbitration." As held in Jagdish Chander v. Ramesh Chander and ors. (2007).

MSME Council Cannot Reject Arbitrable Claims Without Providing Any Reasons When Meditation U/S 18 Of MSME Act Has Failed: Calcutta HC

Case Title: UMC TECHNOLOGIES P LTD VS ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF POSTAL SERVICES, (RECRUITMENT)

Case Number: AP-COM/39/2024

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar has held that the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (MSME) Facilitation Council cannot reject the arbitrable claims of the supplier without providing an opportunity to present evidence in support of the same, especially when mediation, as required under Section 18 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (MSME Act) has failed. As per law, the Council is then mandated to either adjudicate the arbitrable matter itself or refer it to an institution providing alternative dispute resolution services.

The court observed that the law mandates that once mediation fails, the Council must either handle the arbitration itself or refer the dispute to an institutional centre. Proceedings shall be governed by the Arbitration Act thereafter. The Council is required to allow both parties to present evidence. It further added that the Council noted that the claimant alleged the 2016 Job Completion Certificate was withheld, yet failed to address this as a dispute. Instead, the claim was rejected due to the absence of the certificate. The respondent had not presented arguments but only requested time to file a reply.

Successor To Merger Transaction Can Invoke Arbitration Clause When All Rights And Liabilities Are Transferred: Calcutta High Court

Case Title: TATA CAPITAL LIMITED VS KRISHNA KANT TIWARI

Case Number: AP-COM/1035/2024

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar has held that once all liabilities, rights, and obligations are transferred to an entity through a merger approved by the competent forum, the arbitration clause contained in a loan agreement executed between the parties prior to the merger can be invoked by a third party that has acquired all such rights and liabilities post-merger.

The court noted that the Supreme Court in 'Ajay Madhusudan Patel v. Jyotrindra S. Patel, (2025)' held that the intention of the parties to be bound by an arbitration agreement can be gauged from the circumstances that surround the participation of the non-signatory party in the negotiation, performance, and termination of the underlying contract containing such agreement. The Apex Court also held that the nature or standard of involvement of the non-signatory in the performance of the contract should be such that the non signatory has actively assumed obligations or performance upon itself under the contract.

Scheme Governing Auction Disputes Applies In All Auction Cases Unless Contrary Scheme Without Arbitration Clause Is Shown: Calcutta High Court

Case Title: SATYA NARAYAN SHAW VERSUS SOURAV GHOSH

Case Number: AP-COM/154/2025

The Calcutta High Court bench Justice Shampa Sarkar has held that when a scheme generally applicable to all auction related disputes contains an arbitration clause, that clause will govern disputes arising between the parties, unless a contrary scheme without such a clause is shown.

The court at the outset noted that the Scheme provides for sale of coal via e-auction for May 2009 and includes an arbitration clause. In this case, the e-auction took place in January 2010. The respondent failed to produce any scheme without such a clause or prove that the arbitration clause was inapplicable. It further added that disputes arose regarding change of rakes, refund of money, and non-delivery of coal. The respondent no. 3 allegedly failed to load two rakes despite advance payment. The reason for non-loading is an arbitrable issue.

Substitution Of Arbitrator Can't Be Allowed When Petitioner Voluntarily Withdraws From Arbitral Proceedings: Calcutta High Court

Case Title: Ashok Kumar Bhuinya Proprietor Of A.K. Enterprise Vs State Of West Bengal

Case Number: AP/344/2022

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar has held that an application under Section 15 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act), seeking substitution of the arbitrator, cannot be allowed when the petitioner had voluntarily withdrawn from the arbitral proceedings and failed to participate despite being given ample opportunities, especially after a long lapse of time.

Arbitration Clause Cannot Be Considered Binding If Mandatory Arbitration Reference Is Missing: Calcutta High Court

Case Title: Sunil Kumar Samanta Vs. Smt. Sikha Mondal

Case Number: AP/15/2022

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Shampa Sakar has held that if a clause in an agreement gives the parties discretion to refer the matter to arbitration after disputes have arisen, it cannot be construed as a binding arbitration agreement. Such invocation of the arbitration clause requires fresh consent of the other party before the matter can be referred to arbitration.

The court at the outset observed that the arbitration clause provides that the lessor will be bound to renew the lease for subsequent periods of the same tenure if the lessee exercises the option, and the rent and terms shall be mutually agreed upon. In case of failure to agree, it may be decided by an arbitrator appointed by the parties. It further added that the use of the expression may indicates that the parties had agreed that they may approach arbitration in future. May implies a possibility, not a binding agreement. The meeting of minds to refer disputes to arbitration is not evident from the clause. An arbitration clause must show that parties agreed they shall refer disputes to arbitration and be bound by the decision of a private tribunal.

While Disputes U/S 31 Of Specific Relief Act Are Arbitrable, Arbitral Awards Are Not Binding On Third Parties: Calcutta HC

Case Title: Jagat Singh Manot Versus The Municipal Commissioner, Kolkata Municipal Corporation And Ors.

Case Number: W.P.O. 503 OF 2024

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Gaurang Kanth has held that although disputes relating to the cancellation of written instruments under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 are arbitrable, the resulting awards are binding only on the parties involved and not on third parties who were not part of the arbitral proceedings.

The court further observed that under Section 31(1) of the Specific Relief Act, an instrument can be cancelled only in two situations. If the instrument is void or voidable against the person concerned, or When both parties mutually agree to cancel the deed.In the first case, the concerned person must initiate a suit to have the instrument adjudged void or voidable, and the court may, at its discretion, declare it so and order its cancellation.

Although Injunction Against Invocation Of Guarantee Cannot Be Granted, Court Can Grant Interim Protection If Prima Facie Case Is Established: Calcutta HC

Case Title: Gallant Equipment Pvt Ltd Vs Rashmi Metaliks Ltd

Case Number: AP-COM/277/2025

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar has held that although an injunction against the invocation of a bank guarantee cannot normally be granted, if the petitioner establishes a prima facie case, the court should not hesitate to grant interim protection under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act).

The court also opined that the principles under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 and Order 38 Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) are not strictly applicable to Section 9 applications under the Arbitration Act. If the petitioner establishes a case for interim protection, the Court should not hesitate to grant such relief until the arbitral proceedings are concluded.

Whether IRCTC's Revised Menu Alters Original Contract With Arbitration Clause Is For Arbitrator To Decide, Falls Outside Court's Jurisdiction: Calcutta HC

Case Title: M/S Doon's Caterers Vs M/S Indian Railway Catering And Tourism Corporation Limited

Case Number :AP-COM/268/2025

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar has held that whether the subsequent revision of the original menu by IRCTC form part of the original contract containing an arbitration clause is a matter to be decided by the Arbitrator.

The court further opined that under the “Specification” section of Notice Inviting Tender (NIT), Clause (j) states that the supply schedule, i.e., the menu, is subject to change at the sole discretion of IRCTC/Railways, and IRCTC's decision would be binding. It is undisputed that IRCTC revised the menu based on the flexibility granted by the Ministry of Railways and instructed all General Managers of the zones to implement the modified menu.

Appointment Of Arbitrator By GM Of Metro Rail In Dispute Between Railways & Contractor Is Barred U/S 12(5) Of Arbitration Act: Calcutta HC

Case Title: M/S Krishna Construction Vs The Chief General Manager Metro Railway And Ors

Case Number:AP-COM/253/2025

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar has held that the appointment of an arbitrator by the General Manager of Metro Railways in a dispute between Metro Railways and the contractor is barred by Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act). Therefore, the General Manager cannot be permitted to appoint the arbitrator.

The Supreme Court in Central Organisation for Railway Electrification vs. ECI SPIC SMO MCML (JV) A joint Venture Company (2024) held that unilateral appointment clauses in public-private contracts violate the principle of equal treatment under Article 14 of the Constitution, compromising the independence and impartiality of the arbitrator. The Apex Court further added that such clauses, allowing one party to appoint an arbitrator without the other's participation, create an unfair imbalance. The principle of express waiver under Section 12(5) of the Arbitration Act allows parties to waive allegations of bias after disputes arise, but cannot justify an inherently unequal appointment process. Based on the above, the court held that regarding the objections related to the arbitrability of the issues, admissibility of the claim, the claim being barred by limitation, justification of termination, non-refund of the security deposit and bank guarantee, etc., this Court is of the view that these matters should be adjudicated by the learned arbitrator, to be appointed by the Court, independently.

No Interim Relief U/S 9 Of A&C Act Without Exceptional Circumstances After Conciliation Fails & Arbitration Starts Under MSME Act: Calcutta HC

Case Title: Lakhotia Metalizers Private Limited Vs Matashree Snacks Pvt. Ltd.

Case Number:AP-COM/129/2025

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar has held that once conciliation fails under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (MSME Act), the Council may either conduct the arbitration itself or refer the matter to an arbitral institution. As per Section 18(3) of the MSME Act, the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) apply to such arbitration proceedings.

The court at the outset noted that the present application is premature, as the petitioner has not sought interim protection from the arbitral tribunal. As per Section 9(3) of the Arbitration Act, once the arbitral tribunal is constituted, the court should not entertain an application for interim measures unless it finds that remedies under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act are not efficacious.

Composite Reference To Arbitration Can Be Made For Acceptance Of Offer At Consolidated Price Across Different Locations: Calcutta HC

Case Title: Johnson Controls Hitachi Air Conditioning India Ltd. Vs M/S. Shapoorji Pallonji And Company Pvt Ltd.

Case Number:AP-COM/315/2025

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar has held that the very acceptance of an offer at a consolidated price for works to be executed at different locations proves that the work orders issued were treated as part of a single transaction by the parties through their conduct therefore under such circumstances a composite reference of all work orders can be made to arbitration.

The court at the outset discussed the impermissibility of unilateral appointment of arbitrator an noted that the Supreme Court in Perkins Eastman Architects DPC and Another vs. HSCC (India) Ltd. 2019 held that whatever advantage a party may derive by nominating an arbitrator of its choice is counter-balanced by the equal power vested in the other party. However, where only one party has the right to appoint a sole arbitrator, its choice carries an element of exclusivity in determining the course of dispute resolution.

Delhi High Court

Delay In Publication Does Not Invalidate Award Unless It Is Shown That The Award Has Materially Affected Rights Of Parties: Delhi High Court

Case Title: M/s Brij Lal & Sons v. Union of India

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 397

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Dharmesh Sharma while dismissing an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has observed that delay in publication of award does not invalidate the award unless it is shown that the award has materially affected the rights of the parties.

The Court further discussed the scope of the expression “the public policy of India” contained in Section 34(2)(b)(ii) of the Act. The Court placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of ONGC Ltd. v. Saw Pipes Ltd. (2003) 5 SCC 705 wherein it was observed, “However, the award which is, on the face of it, patently in violation of statutory provisions cannot be said to be in public interest. Such award/judgment/decision is likely to adversely affect the administration of justice”. In view of the aforesaid propositions of law, the Court held that it was unable to find any illegality, perversity in the impugned award passed by the arbitrator. A perusal of the record indicated that the parties were heard at length and the claims were duly considered. There was no issue of any proceeding being unfair or violative of the principles of natural justice in the course of arbitration.

Schedule IV Of Arbitration Act On Fees Of Arbitrator Does Not Mandatorily Apply To International Commercial Arbitrations: Delhi High Court

Case Title: NHAI v. Ssyangyong Engineering Construction Co. Ltd.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 403

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Sachin Datta has observed that in an international commercial arbitration in terms of Section 2(1)(f)(ii) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the IVth Schedule pertaining to fees of the arbitrator will not apply mandatorily in view of Explanation to Section 11(14) of the Act.

The Court concluded that the assertion by the Petitioner that the fees had been unilaterally fixed by the Arbitral Tribunal was not borne out from the record. Further, reliance placed on of ONGC Ltd. v. Afcons Gunanusa JV in which it has been observed that unilateral determination of fees violates the principle of party autonomy and the doctrine of the prohibition of in rem suam decisions was wholly inapplicable in the context of the facts of the present case.

Referral Court Should Limit Enquiry To Whether Plea Has Been Filed Within Limitation, Not Whether Claims Are Ex-Facie Time Barred: Delhi HC

Case Title – M/s Pavan Metal Refiners v. Union of India

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 418

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri has observed that at the stage of appointment of arbitrator under Section 11, A&C, the referral court should limit its inquiry to whether the petition itself is within the limitation period of three years and should leave the question of whether the claims are deadwood to the arbitral tribunal.

The Court noted that two major grounds for opposition to the present petition had been raised by the Respondents, namely non-existence of arbitration clause and limitation. In so far as the first contention was concerned, the Respondents had argued that Clause 2905(a) did not apply to the present dispute as it had first arisen in 2001. However, the Court noted that a perusal of the letter dated 20.10.2021 showed that the Respondents did not raise even a sliver of doubt regarding the applicability of the arbitration clause. Similarly, in a follow up letter dated 20.10.2021, by which the Respondents refused the request of the Petitioner regarding appointment of sole arbitrator on the ground that the claims were time barred, no mention regarding the inapplicability of the arbitration clause was made.

Writ Petition Cannot Be Construed As “Earlier Application” U/S 42 Of Arbitration & Conciliation Act: Delhi High Court

Case Title – Hariram & Ors. V. NHAI

Case No. – O.M.P. (COMM) 86/2021

The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri has observed that a writ petition cannot be construed as an "earlier application" under Section 42 of the Arbitration Act to decide jurisdiction as the very nature of a writ petition is to challenge an administrative action or a legal decision, not to initiate arbitration proceedings. Section 42 specifically refers to an "application made in a Court with respect to an arbitration agreement," which implies an initial application to commence or regulate arbitration, rather than a challenge to an existing decision.

The Court observed that in view of Section 2, A&C Act, the relevant Court would be the one having jurisdiction to decide the questions forming the subject-matter of the arbitration if the same had been the subject-matter of a suit. The Court observed that in view of the factual matrix, there was nothing to show that this Court had the territorial jurisdiction over the matter. The impugned arbitral award dated 16.10.2020 under Section 3G(5) and 3G(6), NHAI Act was rendered in Baghpat, Uttar Pradesh, all proceedings in arbitration were also conducted in Baghpat, Uttar Pradesh and even the land that was the subject matter of the impugned arbitral award is situated in Uttar Pradesh.

Delivering Arbitral Award To Power Of Attorney Holder Satisfies Requirement Of 'Delivery' U/S 31(5) Of A&C Act: Delhi High Court

Case Title – Kiran Suran v. Satish Kumar

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 445

The Delhi High Court bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Ravinder Dudeja has observed that the delivery of a copy of the Award to the Power of Attorney holder, who has also represented the party in the arbitral proceedings, shall be a due compliance with Section 31(5) of the A&C Act. Citing a plethora of case laws including Union of India v. Tecco Trichy Engineers & Contractors (2005) 4 SCC 2, the Court observed that it is settled law that the limitation prescribed under Section 34(3) of the A&C Act would commence only from the date a signed copy of the award is delivered to the party making the application for setting it aside. The main question for determination in the present case was whether the Appellant had received the impugned award.

The Court noted that the Appellant had challenged the Power of Attorney as being forged, this question and issued could not be determined in a petition filed under Section 34 of the A&C Act against the impugned award. Additionally, the Court had not been informed of the Appellant having instituted any independent proceedings challenging the said Power of Attorney till that date.

Grant Of Post-Award Interest U/S 31(7)(B) Of A&C Act Is Mandatory, Arbitrator's Discretion Limited To Rate Of Interest: Delhi HC

Case Title: Union of India & Anr. vs. Sudhir Tyagi

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 456

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Ravinder Dudeja has held that the grant of post-award interest under Section 31(7)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“the Act”) is mandatory. The only discretion which the Arbitral Tribunal has is to decide the rate of interest to be awarded. Where the Arbitrator does not fix any rate of interest, then statutory rate, as provided in Section 31(7)(b), shall apply.

It noted that the section consists of two distinct parts: Clause (a) deals with the interest that may be granted up to the date of the award, whereas Clause (b) provides that “a sum directed to be paid by an arbitral award shall, unless the award otherwise directs, carry interest at the rate of eighteen per cent per annum from the date of award to the date of payment”. The Court clarified that Clause (b) is concerned with post-award interest and stated: “What Clause (b) provides for is that Arbitral Tribunal may award interest on the sum adjudged under Clause (a). But if no such interest is awarded, then there shall be interest at the rate of 18%.”

Delhi High Court Dismisses BSNL's Appeal U/S 37 Of A & C Act, Upholds Arbitral Award Of Rs. 43.52 Crore

Case Title: Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd Versus Vihaan Networks Ltd

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 491

The Delhi High Court bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Tejas Karia dismissed BSNL's appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) holding that the Single Judge correctly upheld the Arbitrator's finding that Vihaan Networks Limited carried out the work under the Advance Purchase Order, issued on BSNL's specific instructions, which was later withdrawn. Therefore, the Respondent was rightly compensated under the principle of quantum meruit for the losses incurred.

The court at the outset observed that it is settled law that the scope of an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act is very limited. The Court cannot independently assess the evidence or merits of the arbitral award. Its jurisdiction is confined to examining whether the power under Section 34 was exercised within its scope.

It further added that an appeal under Section 37 cannot go beyond the limits set by Section 34. If the arbitral award reflects a possible and reasonable view based on the evidence, the petition under Section 34 must be dismissed, and the appeal under Section 37 cannot reappreciate the evidence to arrive at a different finding.

Separate Notice For Counter Claims U/S 21 Of A&C Act Not Required When Arbitration Proceedings Are Pending Between Parties: Delhi HC

Case Title – Railtel Corporation of India Limited v. Primatel Fibcom Limited

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 496

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad has observed that where the disputes between the parties are already the subject matter of an earlier arbitral reference, a separate notice under Section 21, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“ACA”) would not be necessary for separate proceedings to adjudicate counter claims.

The Court observed that while it is true that the notice under Section 21, ACA is a sine qua non of arbitration proceedings but where arbitration proceedings have been initiated by one party seeking for reference for the arbitration proceedings under Section 21, ACA for adjudication of disputes, a separate notice under Section 21, ACA would not be necessary only for the purposes of counter claim. This is not the mandate of ACA. Thus, the instant petition need not be dismissed only on the ground that further notice for the purpose of counter claim was not given.

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Delay Beyond Prescribed Period U/S 34(3) Of Arbitration Act Cannot Be Condoned In View Of Inapplicability Of S.5 Of Limitation Act: Himachal Pradesh HC

Case Title: National Highway Authority of India. Versus Jagroop Singh & Ors.

Case Number: OMPM No.55 of 2025 in Arbitration Appeal No.87 of 2025

The Himachal Pradesh High Court bench of Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua has held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (Limitation Act) does not apply to a petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act). Therefore, if the petition is not filed within the prescribed period as laid down under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration Act, the delay cannot be condoned.

The court held that section 5 of the Limitation Act does not apply to applications challenging an arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. Under Section 34(3), such an application must be made within three months, extendable by only thirty days on showing sufficient cause and not thereafter. The court further opined that the phrase “but not thereafter” in the proviso to Section 34 of the Arbitration Act clearly bars any extension beyond thirty days as held by the Supreme Court in My Preferred Transformation & Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. vs. M/s. Faridabad Implements Pvt. Ltd (2025).

Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court

Delay In Receiving Award Due To Default In Paying Arbitral Fees Cannot Be Held Against Party Seeking To Challenge Award While Calculating Limitation: J&K HC

Case-Title: Chief Engineer PW(R&B) Department and another vs M/s Abdul Salam Mir

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 131

The Jammu and Kashmir High Court held that since the delivery of a signed copy of the arbitral award was the mandatory requirement under the arbitration act therefore, the limitation for challenging the said award would arise only after the said signed copy is received by the party seeking to challenge the same.

A bench of Justices Sanjay Dhar observed that there is a distinction between making of award and delivering an award. The court added that making an award refers to the period when a Tribunal finalizes its decision between the parties which is deemed to be made when it is signed by the arbitrator while as Delivering of an award refers to formal handing over of the signed award to the parties in terms of Section 31 (5) of the Act.

Jharkhand High Court

Pendency Of Proceedings Before Competent Authority Under Jharkhand Apartment Ownership Act Will Not Affect Application U/S 11 Of A&C Act: Jharkhand HC

Case Title – M/s Bodhraj Construction v. Snehanshu Sinha

LL Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Jha) 27

The Jharkhand High Court Bench of Chief Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao has observed that 'competent authority' within the meaning of Section 3(l) of the Jharkhand Apartment (Flat) Owners Act, 2011 is an executive authority and not a quasi-judicial or judicial authority. Accordingly, pendency of some proceedings under the said Act would not preclude the court from appointing an arbitrator if there is a valid arbitration clause between the parties.

The Court observed that Section 3(l) of the 2011 Act defined “competent authority” as an officer or authority who or which may be vested by the State Government by a notification in the official gazette with “executive powers” to perform duties and function of the competent authority and for implementing the provisions of the 2011 Act and the rules made there under for such areas as may be specified in the notification under general guidance, superintendence and control of the State Government. Thus, what power is conferred on the “competent authority” under 2011 Act is only an executive power and not a judicial power and therefore, he is not a judicial authority. The Court noted that while Section 21 of the 2011 Act conferred certain powers on the competent authority to impose a penalty in some cases, but this power is not a judicial power as he is not required to adjudicate anything and he only exercises an executive power akin to that exercised under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.

Interest Of 18% Can't Be Claimed In Arbitrations Commencing Before 2015 Amendment, When Award Specifies Particular Rate: Jharkhand HC

Case Title: C.I.S.C.-S.R.S.C. (Joint Venture) Versus Central Coalfields Limited

LL Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Jha) 40

The Jharkhand High Court bench of Chief Justice M. S. Ramachandra Rao and Justice Deepak Roshan has held that interest at the default rate of 18% under unamended Section 31(7)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) cannot be claimed when the arbitral proceedings commenced before the 2015 amendment and the parties have not agreed to apply the amended provision. In such cases, the unamended provision applies, and only the interest specified in the award is payable. The default rate of 18% applies only if the award is silent on interest component.

Karnataka High Court

Petition U/S 34 Of Arbitration Act Cannot Be Decided Without Summoning Entire Record To Verify Service Of Notice: Karnataka HC

Case Title: M/S. MAHA RASHTRA APEX CORPORATION LTD Versus SRI. P.K.MOHAMMED and Ors.

Case Number:MFA No. 11925 of 2012

The Karnataka High Court bench of Justice Hanchate Sanjeevkumar has held that a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) cannot be decided without first summoning the entire arbitration record to determine whether the notice was actually served on the other party.

Awarded Amount Cannot Be Enhanced Under Section 34 Of Arbitration Act: Karnataka High Court

Case Title:The Union Of India and Anr. Versus Sri. Kothari Subbaraju

Case Number: MFA No. 6525 Of 2016

The Karnataka High Court bench of Mr Justice Hanchate Sanjeevkumar has held that the District Judge, while deciding a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act), is not empowered to increase the amount awarded by the Arbitrator. The findings of the Arbitrator with respect to the awarded amount can only be set aside if they contravene any of the grounds specified under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act; however, the awarded amount cannot be either decreased or increased.

The court at the outset observed that the District Judge is not an appellate authority for the purpose of deciding the petition under section 34 of the Arbitration Act therefore it cannot modify the arbitral award. The award can only be set aside on the limited grounds specified under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act.

The Supreme Court in S.V.Samudram (supra) has categorically held that a court under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, has no jurisdiction to modify an arbitral award. If the award conflicts with any of the grounds mentioned under Section 34, it may be set aside, but cannot be altered or modified. Any attempt to modify it would amount to "crossing the Lakshman Rekha."

Karnataka High Court Grants Ex-Parte Injunctions In Favour Of Neil Patel Digital LLC In Dispute Over Breach Of LLP Agreement

Case Title: NEIL PATEL DIGITAL LLC Vs. PRADEEP KUMAR RAJARATHINAM

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 160

The Karnataka High Court bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj has passed ex-parte injunctions under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, in favour of Neil Patel Digital LLC (“NPD LLC”).

The disputes had arisen from breach of the covenants of a Limited Liability Partnership Agreement. The LLP Agreement contained various negative covenants restricting the Respondent No. 1 in respect of, among other things, transfer of funds beyond stipulated limits, appointment of key managerial personnel, induction of partners, etc.. Alleged violations of these covenants by the Respondent No. 1, including suspicious transactions, gave rise to disputes inter se the parties.

Kerala High Court

After Commencement Of Arbitration, Parties Must Wait Until Award Is Pronounced To File Challenge Unless Appeal Is Available At Earlier Stage: Kerala HC

Case Title: M.I. MOHAMMED versus M/S. HLL LIFE CARE LTD.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 227

The Kerela High Court Bench of Justice Basant Balaji has held that once the arbitration has commenced, parties have to wait until the award is pronounced unless a right of appeal is available to them under Section 37 of the Act, even at an earlier stage.

The court held that the petitioner's recourse to an Original Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is improper, and that the sole remedy lies in an appeal under Section 37 of the Act. The court also relied on the judgment in SBP & Co. vs. Patel Engineering (2005), wherein the court has held that when the remedy to challenge the order of arbitrator is available under the Act, then filing of writ is disapproved.

Writ Petition Can Be Entertained When Order U/S 9 Of Arbitration Act Neither Grants Nor Refuses Relief: Kerala HC

Case Title: Flemingo (DFS) Private Limited Versus Airports Authority Of India

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 246

The Kerala High Court bench of Justice Harisankar V. Menon has held that a writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India can be entertained against an order passed by the Commercial Court under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) when such an order neither grants nor refuses to grant relief, thereby not making it appealable under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act.

Punjab and Haryana High Court

Dispute Over Land Mutation Arising From Settlement Agreement Can Be Referred To Arbitration: P&H High Court

Case Title: Dalbir Singh and Another Dalbir Singh and Another Versus M/s Krisam Properties Private Limited

Case Number:CR-5999-2022(O&M)

The Punjab and Haryana High Court bench of Justice Vikram Aggarwal has held that a dispute concerning the mutation of land arising from a Memorandum of Settlement entered into between the parties containing an arbitration clause is considered a dispute in personam especially when it does not affect third-party rights. Such disputes are arbitrable and should be referred to arbitration under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act).

The Supreme Court in 'Booz Allen and Hamilton Inc. Vs. SBI Home Finance Limited and Others' held that when a suit is filed by a party to an arbitration agreement against the other parties, and an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act is filed, the court must consider five key questions: (i) whether an arbitration agreement exists among the parties; (ii) whether all parties to the suit are parties to the arbitration agreement.

Telangana High Court

Arbitrator Cannot Be Appointed Unless Arbitration Clause Is Invoked With Proper Notice U/S 21 Of A&C Act: Telangana High Court

Case Title: MS Cipher Oncology Private Limited vs M S Unimed Health Care Private Limited

Case Number: ARBITRATION APPLICATION No.163 of 2024

The Telangana High Court bench of Acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul has held that unless a proper notice under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act), suggesting the name of the proposed arbitrator, is sent to the other party, the court cannot exercise its jurisdiction under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act. Merely demanding outstanding payment without proposing the name of an arbitrator cannot be construed as a valid invocation of the arbitration clause for the purposes of Section 21 of the Arbitration Act.

The Delhi High Court in Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited v. Narender Singh (2024) held that it is necessary for the party making an appointment to inform the other party in advance of the name of the proposed arbitrator to ensure the person's suitability and qualifications under the Arbitration Act. The court in the above case also held that this notice enables both parties to reach a consensus on the appointment. Unless such notice commencing arbitral proceedings is issued, a party cannot proceed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act. Based on the above, the court held that in the present case, admittedly, the applicant's notice is not relating to a demand for appointment of an arbitrator, although it suggests so in the clause of 'subject'.

Mandate Of Arbitration U/S 29A Of Arbitration Act Can Be Extended By High Court Only When Arbitrator Is Appointed By It: Telangana High Court

Case Title: Smt Somuri Ravali Versus Somuri Purnachandra Rao

Case Number: CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.739 of 2025

The Telangana High Court bench of Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice B.R.Madhusudhan Rao has held that when an arbitrator is appointed by the High Court under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) in a domestic arbitration, the mandate of the arbitrator can be extended by the High Court only under Section 29A of the Arbitration Act and not by any other courts inferior to the High Court.

The court observed that It is evident from Section 2(1)(e)(i) of the Arbitration Act that the term “Court” includes the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction in a district as well as the jurisdictional High Court. The provision does not contain any language excluding the High Court from arbitrations under Part I of the Act, i.e., domestic arbitrations. The court further opined that Section 2(1)(e) read with Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act is hierarchy-sensitive in determining the competent court for matters related to appointment, termination, and extension of an arbitrator's mandate.

Compensation Can Be Granted When Aggrieved Party Continues Service Due To Suppression Of Fact Of Contract's Termination: Telangana HC

Case Title: M S NCC Limited vs M S Elecon Epc Projects Limited

Case Number:COMCA No.29 of 2022

The Telangana High Court bench of Justices Moushumi Bhattacharya and B.R.Madhusudhan Rao has held that loss of profit incurred by a party due to the other party's suppression of material facts regarding the termination of the contract, where the former continued to render services under a mistaken belief, can be reasonably compensated by applying the Hudson formula.

The court at the outset noted that the Indian Contract Act, 1872 does not define the word 'breach' as a standalone act or omission. Sections 73 and 74 of the Act ensure compensation as a consequence of breach. It further observed that section 37 of the Act clarifies a pre-breach situation by declaring that the parties to a contract must either perform or offer to perform their respective promises unless such performance is dispensed with or excused under the provisions of the Act or under any other law.