Mere Pendency Of Criminal Cases Alleging Simple Fraud No Bar To Arbitration : Supreme Court

Cause Title: THE MANAGING DIRECTOR BIHAR STATE FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLY CORPORATION LIMITED & ANR. VERSUS SANJAY KUMAR

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 778

The Supreme Court has allowed the arbitration proceedings to continue in multi-crore Bihar Public Distribution System (“PDS”) Scam, stating that mere pendency of the criminal proceedings in offences involving simple fraud like cheating, criminal breach of trust doesn't bar a dispute from being referred to an arbitration.

“The mere fact that criminal proceedings can or have been instituted in respect of the same incident(s) would not per se lead to the conclusion that the dispute which is otherwise arbitrable ceases to be so.”, the court said.

The bench comprising Justices PS Narasimha and Manoj Misra dismissed the batch of petitions filed by Bihar State Food and Supply Corporation (“BSFSC”) against the High Court's decision to allow application for appointment of an arbitrator in 1,500-crore Bihar Public Distribution System (PDS) scam.

Relying on a seven-judge bench decision in In Re: Interplay, the judgment authored by Justice Narasimha approved the arbitration, noting that since there existed a valid arbitration agreement, it would be impermissible at the referral stage to dive deeper into the dispute; instead referred the same to the arbitration for its adjudication.

Place Of Exclusive Jurisdiction Deemed As 'Seat' Of Arbitration : Supreme Court

Cause Title: M/S ACTIVITAS MANAGEMENT ADVISOR PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS MIND PLUS HEALTHCARE PRIVATE LIMITED

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 795

The Supreme Court observed that in the absence of a seat or venue of arbitration in the arbitration agreement, the place where the exclusive jurisdiction has been vested as per the agreement would be regarded as the 'seat' of the arbitration.

The bench of Justices P.S. Narasimha and A.S. Chandurkar set aside the Punjab & Haryana High Court's order allowing an application for the appointment of an arbitrator in a dispute where the arbitration agreement conferred exclusive jurisdiction for adjudication upon the Bombay High Court.

Relying on Brahmani River Pellets Ltd. v. Kamachi Industries Ltd. (2020), the Court held that the Bombay High Court would have jurisdiction as the “seat” of arbitration, even in the absence of an expressly specified seat in the agreement.

“Where the contract specifies the jurisdiction of the court at a particular place, only such court will have the jurisdiction to deal with the matter and parties intended to exclude all other courts…”, the court said in Brahmani River Pellets Ltd.

Non-Signatories Have No Right To Attend Arbitration Proceedings, Their Presence Breaches Confidentiality : Supreme Court

Cause Title: KAMAL GUPTA & ANR. VERSUS M/S L.R. BUILDERS PVT. LTD & ANR. ETC. (and connected matter)

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 799

The Supreme Court on Wednesday (Aug. 13) observed that a party non-signatory to an arbitration agreement cannot participate in the arbitration proceedings, as the signatories to an arbitration agreement are only entitled to remain present in the arbitration proceedings.

The bench comprising Justices PS Narasimha and AS Chandurkar set aside the Delhi High Court's decision, which allowed the non-signatories to an arbitration agreement to attend the arbitration proceedings in the presence of their counsels.

Thus, the Court considered the issue of “Whether it is permissible for a non-signatory to an agreement leading to arbitration proceedings to remain present in such arbitration proceedings?”

Answering in the negative, the judgment authored by Justice Chandurkar observed:

“Once it is clear that the arbitral award would not bind non-parties to the said MoU/FSD as such parties were not signatories to the said documents, there would be no legal basis whatsoever to permit a non-signatory to the MoU/FSD to remain present in the proceedings before the sole arbitrator. When the arbitration proceedings can take place only between parties to an arbitration agreement and Section 35 of the Act does not make the arbitral award to be passed binding on non-signatories to such agreement, we do not find any legal right conferred by the Act that would enable a non-party to the agreement to remain present in arbitration proceedings between signatories to the agreement.”, the court observed.

Mere Non-Signing Won't Invalidate Arbitration Agreement If Parties Otherwise Consented To Arbitration : Supreme Court

Cause Title: Glencore International AG Versus M/s. Shree Ganesh Metals and another

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 839

The Supreme Court observed that merely because an arbitration agreement was not signed, there is no bar to refer the dispute to arbitration, if the parties have otherwise consented to arbitration.

The bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kumar and Satish Chandra Sharma set aside the Delhi High Court's decision which declined reference to arbitration merely because Respondent No.1 didn't sign the arbitration agreement. Since the Respondent No.1 consented to the contractual terms via email, the Court held that the High Court's refusal to refer to an arbitration on the ground of non-signing of the arbitration agreement cannot be sustained.

“Noting the fact that the requirement of the arbitration agreement being in writing has been continued in Section 7(3) of the Act of 1996, it was observed that Section 7(4) only added that an arbitration agreement could be found in the circumstances mentioned in the three sub-clauses that make up Section 7(4) but that did not mean that, in all cases, an arbitration agreement needs to be signed. It was held that the only pre-requisite is that it should be in writing, as pointed out in Section 7(3). This legal principle would hold good equally for an arbitration agreement covered by Sections 44 and 45 of the Act of 1996.”, the Court said.

High Courts

Allahabad High Court

Executing Court Empowered To Grant Statutory Interest Not Mentioned In Award U/S 36 Of Arbitration Act: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: State Of U.P. and 2 Others v. M/S Satish Chandra Shiv Hare-Brothers

Case No. MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 11680 of 2023

Following the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Union of India and Anr. v. Sudhir Tyagi, the Allahabad High Court has held that under Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the Executing Court is empowered to grant statutory interest which may not have been mentioned in the arbitral award.

In Union of India and Anr. v. Sudhir Tyagi, it was held that

“..the interpretation of Clause (b) of Section 31(7) of the Act is no more res-integra. The grant of post-award interest under Section 31(7)(b) 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…”

Bombay High Court

Three-Month Deadline For Passing Arbitral Award Under NSE Byelaws Is Directory And Not Mandatory: Bombay High Court

Case Title – Bhanuchandra J Doshi v Ms Motilal Oswal Securities Ltd. & Anr.

Case No. – Arbitration Petition No. 1341 of 2015

The Bombay High Court Bench of Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan while deciding a petition under Section 34, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“ACA”) had an occasion to interpret Rule 13, National Stock Exchange (“NSE”) Byelaws. The Court held that Rule 13(b) which provided that arbitral award under the Rules must be rendered within three months from the date of entering upon reference was directory and not mandatory in nature.

The Court went on to analyse Rule 13, NSE Byelaws. The Court observed that from a plain reading of Rule 13(b) the time for completion of arbitration is set out as normally three months from the date of entering upon the reference. Under Rule 13(d), the date of entering upon a reference is defined as the date on which the arbitral tribunal has held the first hearing.

Calcutta High Court

Mere Use Of Expression “Arbitration” Insufficient To Constitute A Binding Agreement U/S 7 Of A&C Act: Calcutta High Court

Case Title: ROSHAN AGARWAL VS. NATIONAL PROJECTS CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION LIMITED (NPCCL) & ANR.

Case No.: AP-COM/218/2025

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar has held that mere use of the expression “Arbitration” in a clause will not automatically make the clause a binding arbitration agreement as contemplated under Section 7 of the Arbitration Conciliation Act, 1996 unless there is a clear intent to refer disputes to Arbitration. The court observed that an arbitration agreement has to be couched not in precatory, but obligatory words. Although, there is no particular form or universally practiced format in framing an arbitration agreement, but the words used must be certain, definite and indicative of the determination of the parties to go for arbitration and not a choice or a mere possibility to refer such dispute to arbitration.

Rejection Of Claims By Writ Court Over Disputed Issues Does Not Bar Reference To Arbitration: Calcutta High Court

Case Title:P.K THAKUR AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LIMITED

Case Number:AP-COM 461 of 2024

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar has held that when the claims of the petitioner are not adjudicated by writ courts and subsequently by the Supreme Court in a Special Leave Petition on the ground that they involve disputed questions of fact and law which are beyond the remit of the court, and the petitioner is directed to invoke the alternative remedy of arbitration due to the undisputed existence of an arbitration clause, the matter should be referred to arbitration and whether the time period spent in prosecuting before the writ courts should be excluded can be decided by the Arbitrator.

Cause Of Action Arises From Clear Refusal To Perform Contractual Obligations, Not Mere Non-Performance: Calcutta High Court

Case Title:Kamini Ferrous Limited Vs. Om Shiv Mangalam Builders Private Limited & Anr.

Case Number:A.P - 43 of 2024

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar held that when there is a clear refusal by one of the parties to perform the terms of a contract, the cause of action arises from the date of such refusal, and not from the date of initial non-performance, especially where negotiations continued, implying that the parties possibly wanted to extend the time for performance.

The present application filed under section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 arose from an agreement executed on 13.04.2012. Clause 14 of the Agreement states that all disputes and differences relating to or arising from the agreement shall be referred to arbitration.

Reference To Dispute Resolution Board Not Mandatory Before Invoking S.11(6) Of Arbitration Act If It Is Not Constituted On Time: Calcutta HC

Case Title: M/S. NATIONAL PROJECT CONSTRUCTION (NPCCL) VS MILITARY ENGINEER SERVICES (MES)

Case Number:AP-COM/559/2025

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar has held that a party cannot be compelled to approach the Dispute Resolution Board (DSB) for resolution of disputes first before invoking the jurisdiction of the court under section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act especially when the DSB was not constituted as per terms of the contract and its composition was not even communicated to the Petitioner within the stipulated time period after the execution of the contract therefore seeking reference to the DSB when the petitioner approaches the court under section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act cannot be accepted.

Proceedings Between Expiry Of Arbitrator's Mandate And Its Extension Are Not Void If Mandate Is Extended: Calcutta High Court

Case Title: GLEN INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED VS ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED

Case Number: AP-COM/540/2025

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar held that proceedings conducted by the Arbitrator between the expiry of the mandate and its subsequent extension cannot be declared void once the application seeking extension is allowed. Upon extension, the mandate relates back to the date of expiry.

The present application has been filed seeking extension of the Arbitrator's mandate. Earlier, the Respondent objected on the ground that the Arbitration continued the proceedings even after the mandate had lapsed. However, as noted by the court in its previous order, the petitioner's continuous participation and examination of witnesses constituted an implied agreement between the parties to extend the mandate.

Delivery Of Certified Copy Of Award After Signing & Authentication Constitutes Valid Service U/S 31(5) Of Arbitration Act: Calcutta HC

Case Title: J.D. ELECTRICAL PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED VS PURBACHAL UDYOG

Case Number: IA No: GA/1/2022 EC/87/2021

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar held that delivery of a certified copy of the award, signed by the members, when properly addressed, stamped, and sent by speed post with delivery confirmed by the postal department, amounts to effective service even if the original signed copy of the award is not dispatched.

The present application has been filed under section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) seeking a declaration that the award dated 10.11.2020 is non-est and unenforceable. It is further prayed that the execution proceedings should be stayed pending disposal of the application.

Delhi High Court

Arbitral Award Cannot Be Challenged Through Civil Suit: Delhi High Court

Case Title: MMTC LIMITED versus Ms. ANGLO-AMERICAN METALLURGICAL PTY LIMITED AND ORS.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 912

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh has held that an arbitral award cannot be challenged through a civil suit, as such a course is clearly barred under Section 5 read with Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act). Such a plaint deserves to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC), on the ground that it is barred by law.

It held that “the Arbitral Award may be set aside “only” on the grounds mentioned there under. By using the word “only” twice, section 34 of 1996 Act makes it clear that no challenge to an Award can be launched outside of the said section and beyond the grounds specified therein. This means that section 34 of 1996 Act offers an exhaustive and exclusive remedy to contest an Arbitral Award.”

Restraining Breaching Party From Activities Barred By Shareholders' Agreement Is Not Prohibited U/S 27 Of Contract Act: Delhi High Court

Case Title: PAUL DEEPAK RAJARATNAM & ORS. versus SURGEPORT LOGISTICS PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 943

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh has held that restraining a breaching party through an interim award passed under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act from engaging in certain activities, as per the terms of Shareholders' Agreement (SHA), to prevent the subject matter of arbitration from being rendered futile, is not barred under Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act, especially when the contract remains valid and has not been lawfully terminated.

The court further held that existence of a liquidated damages clause does not bar issuance of injunctive reliefs when the damages caused due to the conduct of the breaching party cannot be quantified. The interim reliefs under section 17 of the Arbitration Act were essential to protect the subject matter of the Arbitration and to prevent the arbitration from being rendered futile. Denial of such reliefs would allow the Appellants to cause irreparable harm to the Respondent's business abroad. Furthermore, the interim award is neither punitive nor final rather it was passed to maintain the contractual status quo.

Parties' Decision To Transact Goods In 'Sound Condition' Prevails Over Prior Agreement To Transact On 'As Is Where Is' Basis”: Delhi HC

Case Title – PEC Ltd v. Ms Badri Singh Vinimay Pvt Ltd.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 958

The Delhi High Court bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar while upholding an arbitral award has observed that if the parties had agreed to transact goods on 'as is where is' basis in the tender document but agreed in the acceptance letter that the goods would be transacted on 'sound condition' basis, then the earlier agreement will stand substituted by the latter understanding between the parties and the goods will be transacted on 'sound condition' basis.

The Court observed that the earlier “as is where is basis clause” subsequently stood substituted and was only limited to as to whether the Respondents carried out their obligation of lifting that conformed to the stipulation of “sound condition”, the Court observed that it had to look at the entire dispute from the narrow conspectus of as to whether the Respondents had adhered to the Agreement between the parties which was for the supply of cargo in “sound condition”, i.e. 960 bags.

OYO Approaches Delhi High Court Challenging Arbitral Award In Co-Working Space Lease Dispute Against Lenskart

Oyo has filed a section 34 petition before the High Court of Delhi, challenging a few portions of an arbitral award passed in the dispute between Oyo and Lenskart (“Oyo Hotels and Homes Pvt Ltd v. Lenskart Solutions”) pertaining to the termination of a co-working space lease during the COVID-19 pandemic. In the arbitral proceedings, Oyo was partially successful and has filed the Section 34 petition to set aside the arbitral tribunal's finding concerning compensation for the lock-in period under the lease agreement, the award of interest, and observations concerning the issue of stamp duty.

Post-Termination Restrictive Covenants In Employment Contracts Are Void U/S 27 Of Contract Act: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Neosky India Limited & Anr. v. Mr. Nagendran Kandasamy & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 977

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh has held that post-service restrictive covenants in employment contracts, which operate after cessation of employment, are void and are not enforceable under Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 (“Contract Act”) and violate Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The court vacated the injunction granted in an application under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Arbitration Act”), which restrained the Respondents from engaging in a competing business post-termination of their employment agreements.

Timeline Prescribed For Filing Statement Of Defence Under Rule 18(3) Of Indian Council Of Arbitration Rules Is Directory In Nature: Delhi HC

Case Title: ANEJA CONSTRUCTIONS (INDIA) versus DOOSAN POWER SYSTEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANR.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 980

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Manoj Jain has held that the timeline prescribed under Indian Council of Arbitration Rules, 2024 for filing a Statement of Defence by the respondent is directory in nature and can be extended by the Arbitral Tribunal if a sufficient cause is established.

The Court noted that a careful perusal of the impugned order, it becomes clear that the Arbitral Tribunal believed that it had jurisdiction to extend the timelines in the interest of justice. While acknowledging the timelines prescribed by the ICA Rules, it held that the time can be extended if a sufficient cause is shown. The Arbitral Tribunal also noted that the cases cited by the claimant relate to statutory provisions whereas the timelines in the present case emerge from the ICA Rules, not any specific legislation.

Interim Injunction U/S 9 Of Arbitration Act Cannot Be Granted To Prevent Convening Of Meeting For Removal Of Director: Delhi High Court

Case Title – Drharors Aesthetics v. Debulal Banerjee

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 981

The Delhi High Court bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar has observed that an interim injunction under section 9, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“ACA”) cannot be granted to prevent convening of extraordinary general meeting for removal of a director as it effectively amounts to grant of final relief and impinges upon statutory powers conferred to a Company under the Companies Act, 2013.

The Court observed that a perusal of the Impugned order revealed that the District Judge found prima facie merit in the contention of the Respondent that the notices for Board Meeting and EGM were issued in contravention of Sections 169 and 173(3), Companies Act, 2013 as they did not meet the statutory minimum of 7 days and lacked sufficient particulars regarding the grounds of proposed removal which denied the Respondent the reasonable opportunity of being heard. On this basis, the District Judge granted the interim injunction.

Failure To Frame Counter Claim As An Additional Issue When It Forms Part Of Pleadings Is Patently Illegal: Delhi High Court

Case Title – Indraprastha Power Generation Co Ltd. v EM Services P Ltd.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 991

The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh has observed that once the reasons/basis for a counter claim, the amount and computation of the counter claim had been made in the Reply, it does not matter if there is no specific prayer in the prayer clause. In such a scenario, an arbitral award refusing to frame an issue for the counter claim would be patently illegal and would be against the fundamental policy of Indian Law.

The Court observed that once there was counter claim of the Petitioner in its pleading and the Petitioner had spelt out the reasons as well as has given basis for arriving at a figure of counter-claim and moreover, the Respondent in its rejoinder had denied the claim of the petitioner, it was incumbent upon the Sole Arbitrator to frame an issue in this regard and to that extent the order dated 13.02.2022 passed by the Sole Arbitrator is erroneous.

Delhi High Court Issues Notice On Plea Challenging Appointment Of Ex-Railway Officials As Arbitrators In Railway Dispute

Case Title: M/s Royal Infraconstru Limited v. Union of India, West Central Railway

Case No.: O.M.P. (T) (COMM.) 80/2025

The Delhi High Court bench comprising Justice Amit Bansal has issued notice in a petition filed under Section 14 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Arbitration Act”), seeking termination of the mandate of the Standing Arbitral Tribunal (“SAT”) constituted by the Union of India, West Central Railway (“Respondent”) in view of the ruling of the Supreme Court in Central Organisation for Railway Electrification v. ECI SPIC SMO MCML (JV).

Govt Notifications Imposing Restrictions On Usage In Contracts For Supply Of Gas Are Laws Under Article 12, Must Be Complied With: Delhi HC

Case Name: Gujarat State Fertilisers & Chemicals Ltd. v. M/S Gail (India) Ltd.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1019

The Delhi High Court, while dismissing a Section 34 petition, observed that the five contracts entered into between the parties were subject to the restrictions imposed by the Government. By providing the gas at a subsidised price, the Government has the authority to regulate the use of such gas.

The bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad held that the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas (“MoPNG”) had apprised the Petitioner of the Government's policy concerning the usage of APM gas. The learned Sole Arbitrator was correct in holding that the buyer of the gas would not be entitled to use the subsidised gas for any other purpose than the contemplated in the contract, i.e., production of fertilisers.

Dismissal Of Plea U/S 8 Of A&C Act Amounts To Res Judicata; S.11 Court Cannot Refer Parties To Arbitration: Delhi High Court

Case Name: Surender Bajaj v. Dinesh Chand Gupta and Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1032

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, while dismissing a Section 11 petition under the A&C Act, observed that dismissing a Section 8 application under the A&C Act amounts to res judicata. The Section 11 Court cannot refer the parties to Arbitration if the order dismissing Section 8 is not set aside or interfered with.

A Collaboration Agreement dated 26.11.2018 was entered into by the parties, and the Petitioner was required to carry out the construction. In lieu of the construction, the possession and ownership of the second floor were to be handed over to the Petitioner. The said construction was carried out; however, the Respondent was not handing over the possession and ownership of the property.

Karnataka High Court

Seat Of Arbitration Retains Jurisdiction Over Execution Proceedings Irrespective Of Location Of Judgment Debtor's Assets: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Ms. Sumita Abhishek Sundaram v. Sankalpan Infrastructure Private Limited

Case No.: WRIT PETITION No.35715 OF 2024 (GM - CPC)

The Karnataka High Court bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna has held that the seat court of an arbitration always retains jurisdiction over execution proceedings irrespective of where the award-debtor is located or has its assets, even when another execution petition is pending in another jurisdiction.

The Court, in considering the question of jurisdiction for the seat of arbitration, had relied on the judgment in BGS SGS SOMA JV v. NHPC Limited (2020), wherein the Supreme Court observed:

"Section 42 is meant to avoid conflicts in jurisdiction of courts by placing the supervisory jurisdiction over all arbitral proceedings in connection with the arbitration in one court exclusively.”

The Court had held that Bangalore would be the seat of arbitration because the respondent Company had its business or a branch at Bangalore, where the petitioner was functioning. The Court referred to Patel Roadways Ltd. v. Prasad Trading Co., which interpreted Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure:

"The clear intendment of the Explanation, however, is that, where the corporation has a subbordinate office in the place where the cause of action arises, it cannot be heard to say that it cannot be sued there because it does not carry on business at that place...".

Meghalaya High Court

Disputes Over Disaffiliation Of State Golf Associations Can Be Referred To Arbitration Under Clause 66 Of IGU Rules: Meghalaya High Court

Case Title – Meghalaya Golf Promoters Society v. Union of India

Case No. – WP(C) No. 154 of 2025

The Meghalaya High Court bench of Justice H. S. Thangkhiew, in a notable judgment has observed that the dispute resolution clause provided in Clause 66 of the IGU Rules and Regulations would apply to instances of disaffiliation of a state golf association by the Indian Golf Union (IGU) and the arbitration would be conducted under the aegis of Arbitration Commission of the Indian Olympic Association. However, seeing the gross violations of principles of natural justice, the Court allowed the writ petition notwithstanding the availability of alternative remedy in the form of arbitration.

Patna High Court

S.5 Of Limitation Act Applies To Revision Pleas Under Bihar Public Works Contracts Disputes Arbitration Act: Patna High Court

Case Title – State of Bihar & Others v. Dayanand Sinha & Others

Case No. – Civil Revision No. 34, 66 and 112 of 2017

The Patna High Court Bench of Justice Ramesh Chand Malviya has observed that Section 5, Limitation Act applies to revisions under Section 13, Bihar Public Works Contracts Disputes Arbitration Act, 2008 (“BPWCDA Act”), meaning thereby that delay in filing a challenge to awards passed under BPWCDA Act can be condoned by applying Section 5, Limitation Act. Since there were conflicting opinions of the Patna High Court on the said point, the matter was sent or reference to a larger bench.

The Court highlighted that Section 34(3), ACA clearly provided that the application may be entertained within a period of 3 months extended by thirty days but not thereafter whereas Section 13, BPWCDA states that application be made to it within three months and it does not clearly exclude the same as it is in addition to and supplemental to ACA. In view of the settled law, the Court observed that an express reference to an exclusion was not essential and the court could examine the language of the special law and its scheme to arrive at a conclusion that certain provisions of the Limitation Act are impliedly excluded. Thus, the Court concluded that Section 5, Limitation Act is applicable to the revisional power of the High Court under Section 13, BPWDCA Act.

Rajasthan High Court

Filing Application U/S 10 Of Commercial Courts Act With S.34 Petition Fulfills Requirements U/S 34 Of A&C Act: Rajasthan High Court

Case Title – Continental Engineering Corporation Limited v Jaipur Metro Rail Corporation

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 274

The Rajasthan High Court Bench of Justices Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Chandra Prakash Shrimali has held that merely if an application filed under Section 10, Commercial Courts Act (“CCA”) does not mention Section 34, Arbitration and Conciliation Act (“ACA”) in the heading, it does not mean that the application cannot be treated as an application under Section 34, ACA. Filing the application under Section 10, CCA and annexing the Section 34 petition fulfils the requirement of Section 34 and such a filing is not defective or untenable in law.

The Court also highlighted instances where it was in fact the Respondent's conduct which had led to delay in the adjudication of the application under Section 34, ACA. The Court observed that the contents of the aforementioned application clearly reveal it being objections under Section 34, ACA which were originally filed before the Commercial Court. The Single Judge, therefore, ought to have looked into the contents thereto. Thus, the Court held that it was unable to accept the findings of the Single Judge that there was no application moved under Section 34, ACA.

Telangana High Court

Non-Signatory Must Have Live & Proximate Connection To Arbitration Agreement For Being Pulled Into Proceedings U/S 9 Of A&C Act: Telangana HC

Case Name: K.Bala Vishnu Raja v. Emaar Hills Township Private Limited and Others

Case Number: C.R.P. Nos. 1014 and 1184 of 2024

The Telangana High Court Division Bench comprising of Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice B.R. Madhusudhan Rao has observed that for being pulled into the proceedings u/s 9 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, a non-signatory must have a live and proximate connection to arbitration agreement.

The bench observed that the law has pushed the boundaries to pull in non-signatories to the arbitration agreement where the conduct of such parties reflects their intention to be bound by the arbitration agreement. A non-signatory cannot escape the obligations of an arbitration agreement by simply claiming they are not a party to it, if the facts show a close and direct connection with that agreement.