Arbitration Agreement Enforceable Against Legal Representatives Of Deceased Party : Supreme Court

Case : Rahul Verma and others vs Rampat Lal Verma and others

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 269

The Supreme Court has reiterated that an arbitration agreement is enforceable against the legal representatives of a deceased partner of a partnership firm. The bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan also referred to the Delhi High Court's judgment in Jyoti Gupta v. Kewalsons & Ors., reported in 2018 SCC OnLine Del 7942 which held that an arbitration agreement does not stand discharged on the death of a partner and it can be enforced by the legal heirs of the deceased-partner. The Court was deciding an appeal against a judgment of the Gauhati High Court which referred the legal heirs of a deceased partner to arbitration. The appellants contended that the arbitration clause cannot be enforced against them as they are non-signatories of the agreement.

International Commercial Arbitration | How To Determine Law Governing Arbitration Agreement? Supreme Court Discusses Tests

Case Title: DISORTHO S.A.S. VERSUS MERIL LIFE SCIENCES PRIVATE LIMITED

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 317

In a significant judgment relating to International Commercial Arbitration, the Supreme Court today (March 18) ruled that in the absence of an express law governing the arbitration agreement, the applicable law should be determined based on the parties' intentions, with a strong presumption in favor of the law governing the main contract (lex contractus).

The bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Justice Sanjay Kumar, and Justice KV Viswanathan heard the case where the plea was made for an appointment of an arbitrator in an International Commercial Arbitration where the Petitioner was a foreign-Columbia-based entity, whereas the Respondent was an Indian-Gujarat based entity.

In this case, because there was no express choice for the law governing the arbitration agreement, the Court then applied the implied choice test and inferred that the parties intended Indian law to govern the arbitration agreement, given that Clause 16.5 designates Indian law as governing the contract. Further, the court found that Indian law had the closest connection to the arbitration agreement satisfying the third test.

High Courts

Andhra Pradesh High Court

Proceedings Before Registrar U/S 62 Of AP Cooperative Societies Act Not Arbitration, Provisions Of A&C Act Will Not Apply: Andhra Pradesh HC

Case Title: Lakshmi Agencies v. Aryapuram Coop Bank Ltd.

Case Number: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal 620/2016

The division bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court consisting of Justices R Raghunandan Rao and Maheswara Rao Kuncheam has observed that when proceedings are held before the Registrar under A.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1964, such proceedings cannot be termed as arbitral proceedings. Accordingly, it was held that no provision of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 including Section 34 would be applicable to them. The appropriate remedy in such a case would be an appeal before the A.P. Cooperative Tribunal, under Section 76 of the APCS Act, 1964. The fact that Section 76 of the APCS Act, 1964 itself provides a remedy of appeal, against the order under Section 62 of the APCS Act, 1964, would make it amply clear that the order passed by the Assistant Registrar cannot be treated to be an award in arbitration proceedings. The Court referred the decision of the Apex Court in Greater Bombay Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. M/s United Yarn Tex. Pvt. Ltd and Ors. AIR 2007 SC 1584 in this regard.

Second Execution Petition Cannot Be Entertained When First Petition Seeking Execution Of Arbitral Award Was Dismissed On Merits: Andhra Pradesh HC

Case Title: M/s. Real Fab India Pvt.Ltd. Versus M/s. Rashtriya Ispath Nigam Limited

Case Title: CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2936 of 2024

The Andhra Pradesh High Court bench of Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari has held that a second execution petition for enforcing an award is not maintainable if the first was rejected on the ground that the award had not been set aside, solely because a signed copy was not filed with the application to set it aside under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act).

Bombay High Court

LLP Can Be Bound By Arbitration Clause Despite Not Being Signatory To LLP Agreement: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Kartik Radia vs. M/s. BDO India LLP and Anr.COMM. ARBITRATION APPLICATION NO. 31 OF 2022

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 85

The Bombay High Court bench of Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan has held that the mere fact that an LLP is not a signatory to an LLP Agreement does not, by itself, preclude it from being a party to arbitration proceedings initiated between Partners under the arbitration clause of such an agreement.

The Court observed that an LLP is not a “third party” to its LLP Agreement but an entity with rights and obligations vis-à-vis its partners as per the statutory scheme of the LLP Act. The Arbitral Tribunal, and not the Section 11 Court, has the jurisdiction to determine whether a party is a necessary or proper party to the arbitration.

Arbitration Clause In Invoices Can Be Binding On Parties When They Acted Upon The Invoices And No Objections Were Raised: Bombay HC

Case Title: Sanjiv Mohan Gupta v. Sai Estate Consultants Chembur Pvt. Ltd.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 94

The Bombay High Court bench of Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan has observed that where the correspondence between the parties included invoices which contained an arbitration clause and the parties acted upon those invoices without protesting, then it could be deemed that the party had accepted the arbitration clause.

The Court relied on its previous judgment in Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd. v. MAD (India) Pvt. Ltd. – 2022 SCC OnLine Bom 7807, that where the parties had acted upon the invoices and there was no denial of invoices raised by the applicant, the clause contained in the invoices which clearly stipulated a reference to arbitration, deserved to be construed as an arbitration clause. The Court observed that in view of the settled position of law with respect to the scope of inquiry under Section 11, its examination was limited to a prima facie existence of a formal arbitration agreement which was satisfied in the present case.

Setting Aside Of Arbitral Award Leaves It Open To Parties To Choose To Arbitrate Again: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Batliboi Environmental Engineering Ltd. v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 100

The Bombay High Court Bench of Justice Somsekhar Sundaresan has observed that once an arbitral award has been set aside by the court in the exercise of its powers under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the parties would be restored to the original position and a fresh arbitration in such circumstances would not amount to the proverbial “second bite at the cherry”.

The court observed that the jurisdiction of limited review under Section 37 read with Section 34 could not assume the character of a full- blown appellate review. While exercising its power under Section 34 and Section 37, the Court does not have the power to consider the case on merits and substitute the judgment in the arbitral award with its own judgment. The Court noted that when the Supreme Court judgment ruled that the Section 37 Judgment was right, it was essentially exercising the same jurisdiction as flowing from Section 37 of the Act read with Section 34 of the Act.Bombay High Court Injuncts Owner Of Kapani Resorts From Alienating Any Interest In Properties Until Conclusion Of Arbitral Proceedings

Case Title: Manmohan Kapani Through Special Power of Attorney Chandani Sood Versus Kapani Resorts Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 106

The Bombay High Court bench of Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan has injuncted the owner of Kapani Resorts and Greater Kailash Property from alienating any interest in the Resorts and the property under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act), until the conclusion of arbitral proceedings

The Court noted that under section 9(1)(ii)(c) of the Arbitration Act, the court can grant interim protection for the detention or preservation of property involved in arbitration. The Greater Kailash Property and fetter on its marketable title is subject matter of the dispute. The title became available to Virendra only because the Kapani Resorts, a company controlled by Virendra and Vaibhav was funded by Manmohan to pay the debt of SIDBI while the reciprocal promise of issuing shares remained unfulfilled.

Court Must Assign Reasons For Accepting Or Rejecting Grounds Of Challenge U/S 34 Of Arbitration Act: Bombay High Court

Case Title: National Agricultural Co-operative Marketing Federation of India Limited (NAFED) Versus Roj Enterprises (P) Limited and Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 110

The Bombay High Court bench of Justices A.S. Chandurkar and Rajesh Patil has held that a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) cannot be dismissed merely by stating that the scope of interference is limited; the court must address each ground of challenge and provide reasoned findings.

The Supreme Court in Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. Vs. Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd. (2024) jurisdiction under Section 37 of the Arbitration is akin to the jurisdiction of the Court under Section 34 and is restricted to the same grounds of challenge as Section 34 of the Arbitration Act.

Benefit Of S.14 Of Limitation Act Extends To Delayed Filing Of Petition U/S 34 Of A&C Act Due To Prosecution In Good Faith In Another Court: Bombay HC

Case Title: NTPC BHEL Power Projects Pvt. Ltd. Versus Shree Electricals & Engineers (India) Pvt. Ltd

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 112

The Bombay High Court bench of Justices G. S. Kulkarni and Advait M. Sethna has held that the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (Limitation Act) can be extended to the petitioner who committed delay in filing an application to set aside an arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) due to the prevailing legal position at the time of filing, which was subsequently changed.

After referring to relevant materials, the court observed that It clearly appears that the appellant was pursuing the writ petition considering the legal position as laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in Gujarat State Petronet Ltd. vs. Micro and Mine Enterprises Facilitation Council (2018) that the Facilitation Council would not have jurisdiction to enter

Arbitrator's Decision To Postpone Issue Of Partnership Firm's Dissolution To Stage Of Final Hearing Not Perverse: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Suresh Raithatha Adult and Anr. VERSUS Bharti Navnit Raithatha

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 114

The Bombay High Court bench of Justices A.S. Chandurkar and Rajesh S. Patil has held that the decision of the Arbitrator to postpone the issue of determining the date of dissolution of the partnership firm to the stage of final hearing cannot be considered perverse for the purpose of section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act), as it requires evidence to be presented, which is necessary for such an issue to be decided.

The Supreme Court in Wander Limited v Antox India Pvt Ltd. (1990) held that “Appellate Court will not reassess the material and seek to reach a conclusion different from the one reached by the court below if the one reached by the court was reasonably possible on the material.” The court concluded that since the Arbitrator's view was plausible and not arbitrary, capricious, or perverse, it could not substitute its own view for that of the Arbitrator, given the limited scope of interference under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act.

Invocation Of Section 9 & Section 11 Of Arbitration Act Does Not Constitute Parallel Proceedings: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Fab Tech Works & Constructions Pvt. Ltd. vs Savvology Games Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 121

The Bombay High Court single bench of Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan held that the mere invocation of Section 9 and Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 does not amount to parallel proceedings. Further, the High Court noted that Section 9 is intended to provide interim relief to safeguard the subject matter of arbitration. On the other hand, Section 11 is limited to the appointment of an arbitrator when there is a dispute regarding the arbitration agreement.

Calcutta High Court

Pre-Referral Jurisdiction Of Court U/S 11(6) Includes Inquiry On Whether Claims Are Ex-Facie & Hopelessly Time Barred: Calcutta HC

Case Title: M/s N.C. Construction v. Union of India

Case Number: AP-COM/144/2025

The Calcutta High Court Bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar has held that while the scope of adjudication by referral court is limited and entails a mere examination of whether the arbitration agreement exists or not, the referral court is not precluded from examining whether the claim is deadwood or ex facie barred.

The Court referred to the decision of the Apex Court in SBI General Insurance v. Krish Spinning 2024 SCC Online SC 1754 wherein the court clarified the dictum laid down in Arif Azim to prevent any conflict between the decision in Arif Azim and Aslam Ismail. Applying the settled position of law to the facts of the case, the court found that the claim of the Petitioner is ex-facie barred. The bill was submitted on October 12, 2007 and the certificate of completion was issued in 2007. From the record it was evident that some the letters issued by the Petitioner disclosed the intention to go for arbitration yet the Petitioner waited upto 2025, to approach the Court.

Referral Court Can Reject Arbitration Only In Exceptional Cases Where Plea Of Fraud Appears To Be Ex Facie Devoid Of Merit: Calcutta HC

Case Title: SREI Equipment Finance Limited v. Whitefield Papermills Ltd.

Case Number: AP-COM/368/2024

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar observed that unless the arbitration agreement prima facie appeared to be inoperative on account of fraud, the referral Court should not indulge in a roving inquiry as such an inquiry is within the domain of the arbitrator. The fact whether the agreement was induced by fraud would entail a detailed consideration of the evidence lead by the parties and these issues cannot be decided by the referral court.

The Court referred to the decision in A Ayyasamy, where the Apex Court had held that an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act can be rejected only when the allegation of forgery and fabrication of documents in support of the plea of fraud permeated through the entire contract, including the arbitration agreement, thereby raising a serious question with regard to the validity of the contract itself. Such issues required elaborate evidence to be adduced by the parties and the civil court should reject such application and proceed with the suit. However, the reverse position was also discussed in the said decision which stated that where there were simple allegations of fraud touching upon the internal affairs of the parties, inter se and it had no implication in the public domain, the arbitration clause need not be avoided and the parties should be relegated to arbitration.

To Prove Corruption Of The Arbitrator, It Should Be Evident From The Award Itself That He Tried To Curb The Course Of Justice

The Calcutta High Court Bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar has observed that if the subject matter of the arbitral proceedings or making of the award was affected or induced by fraud or corruption, then an unconditional stay of award can be granted. However, such corruption must be prima facie evident from the award itself and an honest mistake or erroneous application of law by the arbitrator would not amount to corruption.

The Court observed that the expression “making of the award” would mean that the award must have been obtained by a party to the arbitration upon suppressing material evidence or by making false statements before the arbitrator in order to take an unfair advantage over the other party. In the present case, the petitioners have not been able to, prima facie; establish that any of these situations had arisen in the making of the award. There was nothing on record to show that vital documents had been either concealed or that false statements had been made before the Arbitrator, which had a causative link with the facts constituting and culminating in the award.

Arbitration Agreement Valid Without Specifying 'Applicable Law', 'Seat' Or 'Venue' If Intent To Refer Dispute To Private Tribunal Is Clear: Calcutta HC

Case Title: ILEAD FOUNDATION Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

Case Number: AP-COM/152/2025

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar has held that for an arbitration agreement to be binding, neither the applicable law nor the seat or venue needs to be mentioned. As long as the clause indicates that the parties had agreed and there was a meeting of minds to refer any dispute to a private tribunal for adjudication of the disputes, the clause would constitute an arbitration clause.

Threshold To Prove Fraud & Corruption In Arbitral Award Is Much Higher Than Merely Criticising Findings Of Arbitrator: Calcutta High Court

Case Title: Karur Vyasa Bank v. SREI Equipment Finance Limited

Case Number: AP-COM 947/2024

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar has observed that in order to prove that the making of the award was vitiated by fraud, the petitioner would have to demonstrate that the unethical behaviour of the arbitrator surpassed all moral standards. The Court reiterated that an honest mistake or incorrect appreciation of the terms of the contract cannot be either fraud or corruption.

The Court observed that the second proviso to Section 36(3) required a primary satisfaction on the part of the court that the making of the award was induced or affected by fraud or corruption. The award-debtor could seek stay of operation of the award upon discharging the burden of at least, prima facie, showing that the award was induced by fraud or corruption. The Court made reference to Venture Global Engineering LLP v. Tech Mahindra Limited (2018) 1 SCC 656 to discuss the meaning of fraud. The Court further observed that the threshold to prove fraud and corruption on the part of the learned Arbitrator in the making of the award would be much higher than a criticism of the findings of the learned Arbitrator.

Loss Of Profit In Works Contracts Can Be Awarded Upon Illegal Termination, Even In Absence Of Direct Proof: Calcutta High Court

Case Title: State of West Bengal & Ors. Vs. M/s. S.K. Maji

Case Number: FMA 573 of 2024

The Calcutta High Court division bench of Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Biswaroop Chowdhury has held that once a contractor establishes an illegal and unjustified termination of the contract by the employer, there is no need to prove the actual loss suffered. A reasonable expectation of profit is implicit in a works contract, and compensation must be awarded accordingly. The court distinguished between claims for 'loss of profit' (resulting from unexecuted work due to illegal or premature termination) and 'loss of profitability' (arising from the reduced profit margin due to contract prolongation). The court held that while claims for 'loss of profitability' generally require evidence, 'loss of profit' from unexecuted works does not require proof of actual loss.

Writ Petition Is Not Maintainable When Effective And Efficacious Remedy In Form Of Arbitration Is Available: Calcutta High Court

Case Title: INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED AND OTHERS VERSUS SAUMAJIT ROY CHOWDHURY

Case Number: MAT NO. 1735 OF 2023 WITH I.A. NO. CAN 1 OF 2023

The Calcutta High Court Bench of Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam and Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya held that it cannot entertain a writ petition if an effective and efficacious remedy, in the form of arbitration, is available. It said that the High Court would normally exercise its jurisdiction in 3 contingencies namely (i) when the writ petition was filed for enforcement of any fundamental rights, (ii) where there has been violation of principle of natural justice, or (iii) where the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or where the vires of an Act is challenged.

the court observed that the appellant's case doesn't not fall in any other contingencies which have been carved out in Whirlpool Corporation Versus Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and Others (1998). Also, the court noted that there was a binding arbitration agreement between the parties. Thus, the writ petition was not maintainable, more particularly when the agreement provides for efficacious alternate remedy.

Tendering Authority Is Best Judge To Decide T&C Of Tender, Judicial Interference Permissible Only When Terms Are Arbitrary: Calcutta HC

Case Title: BISWAS ENTERPRISES AND ANOTHER VERSUS STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND OTHERS

Case Number: 2025:CHC-AS:508-DB

The Calcutta High Court bench of Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam and Justice Chaitali Chatterjee (Das) has held that tender issuing authority is the best judge to decide terms and conditions of a tender. Such terms and conditions cannot be tinkered with by the Judicial Authority unless they are found to be arbitrary or whimsical.

The court noted that the Supreme Court in Michigan Rubber (India) Limited Versus State of Karnataka and Others (2002) held that fixation of value of the tender is entirely within the purview of the executive and the court hardly have any role to play in this process except for striking down such action of the executive as is proved to be arbitrary or unreasonable. While applying the above ratio to the facts of the present case, the court rejected the contention of the Appellant that the tender value was set above one crore to favor select bidders and encourage cartelization. The Appellant had previously participated in the tender issued by the State Fisheries Department in May 2023. Given the narrow margin between the amounts of previous tender in which the Appellant participated and the present tender, no valid case for interference is made out.

Non-Signatories To Arbitration Agreement Can Be Made Party To Dispute If Reliefs Sought Against Them Align With Those Sought Against Signatories: Calcutta HC

Case Title: M/s Exchange and Others v. Pradip Kumar Ganeriwala and Another

Case Number: A.P.O.T. No.338 of 2024 arising out of GA (COM) 4 of 2024 In CS (COM) 544 of 2024 with GA (COM) 1 of 2024, GA (COM) 2 of 2024

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justices Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Uday Kumar has observed that if the reliefs against the non-signatories to the arbitration agreement are in harmony with the reliefs sought against the signatories, particularly when the legal relationship between the signatories and non-signatories are on the same platform vis-a-vis the cause of action of the suit and the reliefs claimed, then the non-signatories could very well be brought within the purview of the arbitration agreement. The Court placed reliance on Ajay Madhusudan wherein it was observed that for determining whether non-signatory parties would be bound by the arbitration agreement, the court has to assess whether such parties or entities intended or consented to be bound by the arbitration agreement or the underlying contract. The requirement of a written arbitration agreement did not exclude the possibility of binding non-signatory parties if there was a defined legal relationship between the signatory and non-signatory parties.

Prescribing Pre-Qualification Criteria By Authority In Tender Document Cannot Be Considered Arbitrary If Conditions Are Reasonable: Calcutta HC

Case Title: BLACK DIAMOND RESOURCES AND ANR. VS INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED AND ORS.

Case Number: MAT/2470/2023x

The Calcutta High Court bench of Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam and Justice Chaitali Chatterjee Das has held that the imposition of pre-qualification conditions by the tender-inviting authority cannot be interfered with by the courts when sufficient guidelines have been provided in the tender documents on how the authority's discretion shall be exercised.

The court noted that Rule 173(i) General Financial Rules, 2017 uses the word may granting the tendering authority discretion to relax turnover/expense criteria for startups. The Appellant cannot claim such relaxation as mandatory. Given that the tendered product is an explosive substance, IOCL had the authority to impose conditions ensuring public safety. Moreover, the Ministry of Finance's OM date September 20 2016 excludes sensitive departments from the relaxed norms.
The Supreme Court in Afcons Infrastructure Limited (supra) held that a constitutional court will not interfere merely due to disagreement with an administrative decision or its process. The interference of the court is justified only when mala fides, favoritism, arbitrariness, irrationality or perversity is established.

Delhi High Court

When Application U/S 33 Of A&C Act Is 'Disguised Review', Limitation For Challenging Award U/S 34 Cannot Be Extended: Delhi HC

Case Title: DELHI METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD. Vs. HCC SAMSUNG JV

Case Number: O.M.P. (COMM) 381/2024 & I.A. 38567/2024

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad has held that if the application under Section 33 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is purely an application for review, then the person seeking to challenge the award cannot avail of the time taken between the filing of the application under Section 33 and the date of disposal for calculating the period to challenge the award. The court stated that Section 33 cannot be allowed to be used as a tool to prolong limitation under Section 34, as it would undermine the legislative intent behind Section 33.

The court referred to the case of Gyan Prakash Arya v. Titan Industries Ltd. (2023), wherein the Respondent had moved an application under Section 33 seeking an increment in the valuation of gold based on the prevailing market value, which the Petitioner was required to pay under the award. The Supreme Court while setting aside the order of the Arbitral Tribunal in the Section 33 application, observed that "only in a case of arithmetical and/or clerical error, the award can be modified and such errors only can be corrected”.

Time Spent Before 'Wrong' Court Excluded U/S 14 Of Limitation Act While Calculating Limitation Period U/S 34 Of Arbitration Act: Delhi High Court

Case Title: INCITE HOMECARE PRODUCTS PVT LTD versus R K SWAMY PVT LTD ERSTWHILE RK SWAMY BBDO PVT LTD

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 279

The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Dharmesh Sharma has held that during the calculation of the limitation period of three months for the application under Section 34(1) of the Act, the time during which the applicant was prosecuting such application before the wrong court is excluded. Court noted that the proceedings in the wrong court should be bona fide, with due diligence.

The court observed that the District Judge had failed to consider the aspect of exclusion of time in accordance with Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Further, the court also relied on the judgment in Consolidated Engg. Enterprises v. Principal Secy. Irrigation Deptt., wherein the Supreme Court distinguished the scope and ambit of Section 5 vis-a-vis Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

Limitation Does Not Stop If Initial Filing Is Non Est, Date Of Filing Must Be Reckoned From Date Of Refiling: Delhi HC

Case Title: Sudesh Hans v. Gian Chand Hans and Another

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 281

The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri has reiterated that the filing of the arbitral award under challenge along with application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is not a mere procedural formality but an essential requirement and non-filing of the same would make the application non est in the eyes of law. The Court further observed that such a non est filing would not stop the limitation and the date of filing would be reckoned from the date of refilling.

The Court relied on its recent full bench decision in Pragati Construction Consultants v. Union of India and Another 2025 SCC OnLine Del 636, wherein it was observed that an initial filing is considered to be non est if the application under Section 34 Arbitration and Conciliation Act is so deficient so as not to be considered as a filing at all. Even if such a deficient filing is made within the period of limitation, the Court will not consider the same to have been filed in law and the period of limitation for filing the same shall not stop and shall continue to run. It was further observed that filing of the Arbitral Award under challenge along with the application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is not a mere procedural formality but an essential requirement and non filing of the same would make the application non est in the eyes of law.

Delhi HC Grants Interim Relief U/S 9 Of Arbitration Act By Attaching TMT Steel Bars Worth ₹69.5 Crores Made Using Coal Whose Quality Was Disputed

Case Title: RESCOM MINERAL TRADING FZE versus RASHTRIYA ISPAT NIGAM LIMITED RINL AND ANR

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 282

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri has granted interim relief to a petitioner under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to the extent of 50% of the balance outstanding claimed i.e., Rs. 69.50 Crores by attaching TMT Steel bars (finished product) of the equivalent amount in a dispute over the quality of coal delivered, which was used to manufacture the steel bars.

Arbitral Awards Can Be Granted On The Basis Of Evidentiary Admissions: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Rattan India Power Ltd. v. BHEL

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 299

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Prateek Jalan has observed that the power to pass an award on admissions is wide, and evidentiary admissions (admissions contained outside pleadings) can also form the basis of an arbitral award. The Court observed that while it is true that admissions in pleadings are placed on a higher footing to the extent that they may require nothing more for a decree to follow, those outside of pleadings must be considered contextually. However, to hold that there is a bar on granting an award of admissions in the case of evidentiary admissions would be inconsistent with the text of Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC.

The Court observed that the argument of the Petitioner that an award cannot be made on evidentiary admissions i.e. admissions beyond pleadings was liable to be rejected in view of the use of the phrase “pleadings or otherwise” used in Order XII Rule 6. The Court observed that while it is true that admissions in pleadings are placed on a higher footing to the extent that they may require nothing more for a decree to follow, whereas those outside of pleadings must be considered contextually. However, to hold that there is a bar on granting an award of admissions in the case of evidentiary admissions, would be inconsistent with the text of Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC.

Veracity Of Allegations Against Settlement Agreement Cannot Be Looked Into By Court In Application U/S 11 Of Arbitration Act: Delhi High Court

Case Title: M/s ARSS Infrastructure Projects Ltd. v. National Highway Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 313

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri has reiterated that the scope of inquiry under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, is limited to examining the prima facie existence of the arbitration agreement. It was further observed that if either party contests a prior settlement agreement, then such allegations cannot be looked into by the Court under an application for appointment of arbitrator and would have to take recourse under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.

The Court observed that the Petitioner had alleged that the settlement proceedings were vitiated because at that time the Petitioner was in financial duress. The veracity of the allegations of the Petitioner qua the settlement agreement could not be looked into by the Court in a petition under Section 11 of the Act. As per Section 74 of the A&C Act, the settlement agreement entered shall have the same status and effect as if it is an arbitral award on agreed terms on the substance of the dispute rendered by an arbitral tribunal under section 30. If the Petitioner wished to challenge the settlement agreement, they would have to take recourse under Section 34 of the A&C Act, subject to the rules of limitation.

Withdrawal Of MSMED Council Application Does Not Preclude Arbitration U/S 11, Even Without Council's Response: Delhi High Court

Case Title: M/S Smartschool Education Private Limited Vs M/S Bada Business Pvt. Ltd And Ors

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 320

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad held that withdrawal of an application before the MSMED Council does not bar a party from seeking the appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, even in the absence of any corresponding response from the MSMED Council.

The Court observed that Clause 11.2.2 of the agreement contains an arbitration clause which provides that the seat of arbitration shall be at New Delhi. The Petitioner issued notice dated 02.03.2023 followed by another notice dated 30.05.2024 invoking arbitration. The Respondent has chosen to deny its liability and therefore there is no question of making any attempt to settle the disputes amicably. The Petitioner has therefore approached this Court for appointment of arbitration and this Court has issued notice in the matter on 05.08.2024.

Serious Allegations Of Fraud Constituting Criminal Offense Are Non-Arbitrable: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Bentwood Seating System (P) Ltd. vs Airport Authority Of India & Anr

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 321

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad held that the allegations of fraud which are extremely serious and potentially constitute a criminal offense are non-arbitrable. The court noted that the plea of fraud is of such a nature that it impacts the entire contract, including the arbitration agreement. Consequently, the court held that such a dispute is not arbitrable in nature.

The High Court referred to the decisions of the Supreme Court in A. Ayyasamy v. A. Paramasivam & Ors [(2016) 10 SCC 386] and Vidya Drolia and Others v. Durga Trading Corporation [(2021) 2 SCC 1]. The Supreme Court in these cases clarified the distinction between arbitrable and non-arbitrable disputes involving fraud. The Supreme Court held that while allegations of fraud simpliciter could be adjudicated by an Arbitral Tribunal, serious allegations of fraud should be best left to the Civil Courts. The High Court noted that in this case the allegations of fraud were not simple but involved complex issues. It noted that this included the fabrication of documents from foreign entities and the involvement of international witnesses. The court further held that the Civil Court is better equipped to handle such matters, given the need to summon witnesses from outside the country and the involvement of governmental authorities.

Party Entering Settlement Agreement, Agreeing To Consent Award Cannot Later Object To Its Enforcement On Grounds Of Lack Of Knowledge: Delhi HC

Case Title: Mercedes Benz Group AG v. Minda Corporation Limited

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 322

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Anish Dayal has rejected an objection raised by the Award Debtor against the enforcement of an Award on the ground that it was contrary to public policy since it was not informed by the Award Holder about a previous settlement with the Judgment Debtor's subsidiary. The Court deprecated the stance taken by the Award Debtor, as in view of the facts of the case, it found the objections to be unjust, unfair and nothing but an attempt to obstruct the enforcement of the Award.

Order Passed U/S 23(3) Of Arbitration Act Is Procedural & Not An Interim Award, Cannot Be Challenged U/S 34 Of Arbitration Act: Delhi High Court

Case Title: NTPC LIMITED versus STARCON INFRA PROJECTS INDIA PVT LTD

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 32

The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad has held that an order dismissing an application under Section 23(3) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act is only a procedural order and does not qualify as an 'interim award' amenable to challenge under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act. The court relied on the judgment in Satwant Singh Sodhi v. State of Punjab & Ors. (1999) and held that for any order to be termed as an interim award, it must finally determine the rights of the parties and any order which does not give any imprimatur on the rights of the parties cannot be termed as an interim award.

Application U/S 34 Of Arbitration Act Not Maintainable If Not Filed With Copy Of Arbitral Award: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Ircon International Limited vs M/S Pnc-Jain Construction Co (Jv)

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 332

The Delhi High Court division bench of Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan has held that an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is non-maintainable if it is not accompanied by a copy of the impugned award. The court held that the filing of the award is not a mere procedural requirement but a mandatory prerequisite for invoking the court's jurisdiction under Section 34. The Division Bench referred to its decision in Pragati Construction Consultants v. Union of India. The Full Bench in this case noted that a challenge to an arbitral award is maintainable only on limited grounds. The Full Bench held that none of these conditions can be assessed unless the arbitral award itself is placed before the court. It held that the filing of the award along with the application under Section 34 is not a mere procedural formality but an essential requirement.

Arbitral Tribunal Is Sole Judge Of Evidence, Court Not Required To Re-Evaluate Evidence U/S 34 Of Arbitration Act: Delhi High Court

Case Title: DIRECT NEWS PVT. LTD versus DTS TRAVELS PVT. LTD

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 333

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tejas Karia held that the arbitrator is the ultimate master of the quantity and quality of evidence to be relied upon when he delivers his arbitral award. An award would not be held invalid merely because the award is based on little evidence or on evidence which does not meet the quality of a trained legal mind. Also, the Court held that it is not required to reappreciate or reevaluate the evidence and reagitate the disputes under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996.

Exclusive Jurisdiction Clause Prevails Over Seat Of Arbitration Clause If It Expressly Covers Proceedings Relating To Arbitration: Delhi HC

Case Title: Precitech Enclosures Systems Pvt. Ltd. v. Rudrapur Precision Industries

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 347

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar has observed that generally if an agreement contains both exclusive jurisdiction clause and seat of arbitration clause, then judicial proceedings relating to arbitration would lie only before the court having territorial jurisdiction over the arbitral seat/venue. However, as in the instant case, if the exclusive jurisdiction clause also covers proceedings relating to arbitration then it would prevail over the seat of arbitration clause.

The Court observed that where the agreement between the parties had contractually conferred jurisdiction for appointment of the arbitrator on competent courts in a particular territorial jurisdiction by exclusive jurisdiction clause, such court and no other would have the jurisdiction to entertain a Section 11 application. Thus, where an exclusive jurisdiction clause covered and included applications relating to the arbitral proceedings it would predominate over the seat of arbitration clause.

Participation In Arbitral Proceedings Does Not Imply Acceptance Of Unilateral Appointment Of Arbitrator Unless Objections Are Waived In Writing: Delhi HC

Case Title: SHAKTI PUMP INDIA LTD versus APEX BUILDSYS LTD and Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 351

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad has held that the mandate of the Arbitrator can be terminated under Section 14 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) if the Arbitrator was appointed unilaterally, which is explicitly prohibited under Section 12(5) of the Arbitration Act unless the ineligibility is expressly waived through a written agreement. It also held that mere participation in the arbitration proceedings without expressly waiving any objections in writing cannot tantamount to acceptance of unilateral appointment of Arbitrator.

The court observed that a person's ineligibility to act as an Arbitrator strikes at the very root of the appointment. If the Arbitrator was ineligible to be appointed, anything and everything that flows from such illegal appointment is also non est in law. It further added that the essence of Section 12(5) and the proviso thereto is that there must be an explicit agreement in writing which should be obtained after the dispute has arisen. For the proviso to apply, in this case there has been no such waiver on the part of either of the petitioners.Court Can Appoint Arbitrator U/S 11(6) Of Arbitration Act If MSME Council Fails To Initiate Mediation U/S 18 Of MSMED Act: Delhi HC

Case Title: M/S VALLABH CORPORATION versus SMS INDIA PVT LTD

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 352

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh has held that When the Facilitation Council under the Micro, Small, and Medium Enterprises Development Act (MSMED Act) fails to initiate the mediation process under Section 18 of the MSMED Act, the court can appoint an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act).

The Supreme Court in Gujarat State Civil Supplies Corpn. Ltd. v. Mahakali Foods (P) Ltd., (2023) held that the MSME Act will prevail over the Arbitration Act as the object of MSME Act is to ensure timely and smooth payment to the suppliers who are the micro and small enterprises, and to provide a legal framework for resolving the dispute with regard to the recovery of dues between the parties under the MSME Act. The court held that the Arbitration Act is not inconsistent with the provisions of the MSMED Act as the only provision for appointing an Arbitrator under the MSMED Act is section 18. If the Facilitation Council fails to appoint the Arbitrator, the Arbitrator can be appointed by the Supreme Court or the High Court under section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act.

Court's Jurisdiction U/S 11(6) Of A&C Act Is Decided Under CPC When No Seat Or Venue Is Specified In Arbitration Agreement: Delhi High Court

Case Title: FAITH CONSTRUCTIONS versus N.W.G.E.L CHURCH

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 353

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri has held that in the absence of a specified seat or venue in the Arbitration Agreement, the court's jurisdiction under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) is determined by Sections 16 to 20 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC). The relevant factors include where the respondent resides or conducts business and where the cause of action arose.

The court held that when the arbitration clause lacks clarity on the seat/venue, jurisdiction under section 11 of the Arbitration Act must be determined on the basis of sections 16 to 20 of the CPC. In such a case, two factors are important- where the respondent resides or conducts business and where the cause of action wholly or in part arises. The court further observed that the cause of action consists of material and integral facts that establish rights, obligations and the right to sue. Insignificant facts do not form part of the cause of action and only those facts which have a direct nexus with lis between the parties are considered relevant.

Delhi High Court Upholds Arbitrator's Refusal Of Injunction Against Use Of Tagline "Jeeto Har DinZo" By Winzo Games

Case Title: CREATIVELAND ADVERTISING PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. WINZO GAMES PRIVATE LIMITED

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 355

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad has upheld the findings of the Arbitrator, who refused to grant an injunction restraining Winzo Games Private Limited (“Respondent”) from using the tagline “Jeeto Har DinZo” developed by Creativeland Advertising Private Limited (“Appellant”). Since there was no formal agreement fixing a price for the tagline and no claim of copyright infringement, the Appellant's claim was based solely on an alleged breach of confidentiality. The court observed that its jurisdiction under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, was limited. It held that the view taken by the Arbitrator in the Section 17 application was not so erroneous so as to shock the conscience of the Court.

Execution Of Gift Deed After Arbitral Award Was Passed Indicates Attempt To Frustrate Rights Of Decree Holder, Not Bona Fide Conduct: Delhi HC

Case Title: SIDDHARTH SOOD versus MUNISH KUMAR AGGARWAL

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 356

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Manoj Jain has held that the execution of the Gift Deed by the petitioner after an arbitral award is passed suggests an attempt to frustrate the rights of the decree-holder. The court observed that when the arbitration proceedings were invoked, there was no prohibition and embargo on any kind of attachment with respect to the said property. Admittedly, even when the Award was passed, there was no such prohibition or attachment, but the Court cannot be unmindful of attendant facts and the relationship between judgment debtors and objectors. The objector is the son of the judgment debtors and there is an apparent attempt to frustrate the rights of the decree holder.

Court Cannot Interfere In Arbitration Proceedings At Final Stage, When Sufficient Opportunity Has Been Given To Claimant To Inspect Documents: Delhi HC

Case Title: SUNEHRI BAGH BUILDERS PVT LTD versus DELHI TOURISM AND TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 367

The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Manoj Jain has upheld the order passed by the Arbitrator whereby an application seeking production of certain documents has been dismissed. The court held that sufficient opportunity had been given to the claimant, but he didn't avail that opportunity. Thus, the court cannot interfere with the order of the arbitrator at the final stage. Additionally, it said that the case is at the stage of final arguments and, therefore, the Court did not find any requirement of interfering with the abovesaid order, particularly, when the scope of interference in such type of arbitral proceedings is very limited.

Force Majeure Clause 'Eclipses' Contractual Terms, Existence And Duration Of Force Majeure Event To Be Determined By Arbitral Tribunal: Delhi HC

Case Title: AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA versus DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LIMITED & ANR.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 380

The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma has held that while deciding a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, courts cannot adopt the approach of one-size-fit-for-all. Courts can interfere into the award only if it shocks the conscience of the court and is prone to adversely affect the administration of justice. The court held that a force majeure clause' in a contract is generally an exception or an eclipse provision, meaning thereby if a force majeure is enforced the performance as mandated in the other terms of the contract will remain eclipsed till the force majeure event persists. Whether the force majeure has taken place or not or it exists or not or the time till when it exists is a question of fact to be determined by the Arbitral Tribunal.

Unconditional Withdrawal Of Prior Petition Filed U/S 11 Of A&C Act Bars Subsequent Petition On Same Cause Of Action: Delhi High Court

Case Title: M/s Dewan Chand v. Chairman cum Managing Director and Another

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 389

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri has observed that if a petition for appointment of arbitrator is withdrawn without liberty to file a fresh petition, then by application of Order 23 Rule 1(4), CPC, a subsequent petition on the same cause of action would be barred. The Court held that though Order 23 Rule 1 mentions the words, “plaintiff” and “Suit”, the Courts have extended the same principles to writ petitions, SLPs and even petitions such as the present one, filed under Section 11 of the A&C Act. In this regard court placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in HPCL Bio-Fuels Ltd. v. Shahaji Bhanudas Bhad 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3190.

Writ Petition Is Not An Appropriate Remedy To Seek Enforcement Of Arbitral Award: Delhi High Court

Case Title: RAMCHANDER versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 390

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Jyoti Singh held that when a statutory forum is created by law for redressal of grievances, a writ petition should not be entertained ignoring the statutory dispensation. The court found merit in the preliminary objection of the Railways that a writ is not the appropriate remedy for the petitioner to seek enforcement of the arbitral award. Further, the court held that it is prudent for a Judge to not exercise discretion to allow judicial interference beyond the procedure under the enactment and this power under Article 226 needs to be exercised in exceptional rarity, wherein one party is left remediless under the Statute, or a clear 'bad faith' is shown by one of the parties.

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Arbitrator's Mandate Can Be Extended If Non-Completion Of Proceedings In 12 Months Is Due To Delays Not Attributable To Petitioner: Himachal Pradesh HC

Case Title: Gopinder Singh and Ors. Versus The Land Acquisition Officer Cum Competent Authority (SLAU) and Another.

Case Number: 2025:HHC:6238

The Himachal Pradesh High Court bench of Justice Ranjan Sharma has held that the mandate of the Arbitrator can be extended under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) if the arbitral proceedings are not completed within 12 months due to reasons not attributable to the petitioner, as failing to do so would cause grave prejudice to the petitioner. It further added that though, the arbitral proceedings under Section 29A(1) and Section 29A(3) are to be completed within 18 months period yet in case due to unforeseen eventualities the arbitral proceedings are not completed within 18 months, then the law-makers were conscious enough by prescribing a remedy under Section 29A(5), for extending the period of arbitral proceedings, only for sufficient cause and on such terms and conditions, as may be imposed by the Court.

Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court

Party Cannot Be Forced To Accept Arbitrator Who Has Conflict Of Interest, Violates Principles Of Natural Justice And Fair Trial: J&K High Court

Case-title: Meena Kumari vs Sainik Cooperative House Society Ltd,

Citation: 2025 Livelaw (JKL) 70

The Jammu and Kashmir High Court held that a party could not be forced to accept an arbitrator who has a conflict of interest, as the same would violate the principles of a fair trial. The court held that the Perpetual Lease Deed, as well as the Byelaws, which provide for the Registrar, Cooperative Societies to be the sole arbitrator for adjudicating disputes between the petitioner and the department, would be against the law.

Chief Justice Tashi Rabstan observed that the Registrar, who was appointed as the sole arbitrator under the lease deed, was the head of the respondent cooperative society, and the possibility of bias on his part could not be ruled out. The petitioner had, by virtue of the present petition, requested the appointment of an independent arbitrator under Section 12(5) of the Arbitration Act for adjudicating the dispute, claiming that the Registrar was disqualified due to a conflict of interest.

Karnataka High Court

Arbitration Clause Cannot Be Invoked Again Over Matters Which Have Already Been Adjudicated: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Starlog Enterprises Limited Board of Trustees of New Mangalore Port Trust

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 90

The Karnataka High Court has said the Arbitration clause in the lease agreement cannot be invoked for matters that have already been adjudicated upon and concluded by both the Arbitral Tribunal and the competent courts.

Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum held thus while dismissing a petition filed by Starlog Enterprises Limited, who had approached the court praying for the appointment of a sole arbitrator to arbitrate the disputes that had arisen between him and New Mangalore Port Trust.

On going through the records, the bench noted that the primary relief sought by the petitioner, which involved challenging the termination of the contract, was decisively negated by the Arbitrator. This adverse finding against the petitioner was not contested by initiating proceedings under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Consequently, the Section 34 proceedings were confined solely to the issue of refund of the statutory deposit and the amount expended on the construction of the perimeter wall and these limited reliefs were also set aside by the court.

MSME Council Cannot Pass Award On Account Of Failure Of Conciliation Proceedings, Has To Refer Matter To Arbitration: Karnataka HC

Case Title: M/S ENMAS GB POWER SYSTEMS PROJECTS LTD AND MICRO AND SMALL ENTERPRISES FACILITATION COUNCIL & ANR

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 123

The Karnataka High Court has held that the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council cannot pass an award on account of conciliation having failed without referring the matter to arbitration.

Justice Suraj Govindaraj held thus while allowing the petition filed by M/s Enmas GB Power Systems Projects Ltd. It said, “The matter is remitted to the Karnataka Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, to formally terminate the conciliation proceedings and thereafter take a decision whether it intends to conduct the arbitration proceedings by itself or refer the matter for arbitration to be held by an institution.”

Whether Rights In Favor Of Third Party Are Created In Property Which Is Subject Matter Of Arbitration Cannot Be Decided Under Writ Jurisdiction: Karnataka HC

Case Title: Mr. Ramu Nagabathini Versus Developer Group India Private Limited

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 125

The Karnataka High Court bench of Mr Justice Krishna S Dixit and Mr Justice Ramachandra D. Huddar has held that whether rights in favor of a third party based on sale deeds have been created in the property, which is the subject matter of arbitration, cannot be decided by the court under writ jurisdiction.

The court observed that the petitioner's challenge to arbitration proceedings is not maintainable under Articles 226 or 227 of the constitution as it involves disputed facts which require in depth evidence cannot be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction. Additionally, the petitioner has not demonstrated any statutory or constitutional rights to maintain the writ and his claims are based upon so called sale deeds executed between himself and third parties which are yet to be verified.

Madras High Court

Party Nominating Arbitrator In Response To Notice U/S 21 Of Arbitration Act Is Prohibited From Raising Plea Of Limitation In Petition U/S 11: Madras HC

Case Title: South Ganga Waters Technologies (P) Ltd., Rep. By its Authorized Signatory Mr.Vijay Ramesh, Chennai vs Vedanta Limited

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 118

The Madras High Court bench of Justice Abdul Quddhose has held that once a party nominates an arbitrator in response to a notice issued under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act), it cannot later argue in a petition under Section 11 of the Act that the claim for which the notice was issued is time-barred. The court observed that while deciding a petition filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act, the law is now well settled that the referral court will have to look only into the prima-facie existence of the arbitration clause and once the court is satisfied that there exists an arbitration clause, necessarily, the court will have to refer the dispute to arbitration.

Patna High Court

In Absence Of Separate 'Seat' Clause In Arbitral Agreement, Court Mentioned In 'Venue' Clause Has Exclusive Jurisdiction: Patna HC

Case Title: M/s Pramila Motors Pvt. Ltd. versus M/s Okinawa Autotech International Pvt. Ltd.

LL Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 21

The Patna High Court bench of Acting Chief Justice Ashutosh Kumar has held that in the absence of any clause in the agreement apart from Clause 36.3, which speaks of the “venue” being Delhi, there cannot be any other inference or intention of the parties for the “venue” and the “seat” being different.

Additionally, the court noted that the agreement in question does not mention the “seat” of arbitration but only mentions the “venue” for arbitration, which shall be at New Delhi. Thus, Delhi High Court only shall have the jurisdiction to adjudicate the present request.

Rajasthan High Court

Executing Court Erred In Seeking Transfer Certificate To Execute Award When It Had Jurisidiction To Entertain Application: Rajasthan HC Sets Aside Order

Case Title: Gas Authority of India Limited versus M/s Mahima Real Estate (P) Limited

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 128

The Rajasthan High Court bench of Justice Narendra Singh Dhaddha has held that the Executing Court had committed an error in directing to furnish the transfer certificate for executing an award when it already had jurisdiction to hear the application.

Court said that when the property was situated in Jaipur, the executing court had jurisdiction to entertain the execution application. So, the orders dated 12.10.2018 and 13.03.2019 passed by the Executing Court deserve to be set aside, the court added.

Telangana High Court

S.17 Of Arbitration Act Casts Weighty Burden On Party To Persuade Court To Hold Onto S.9 Proceedings After Formation Of Tribunal: Telangana HC

M/s. Corvine Chemicals and Pharmaceuticals Private Limited vs. Srinivasulu Kanday

The Telangana High Court has held that the 2015 amendment to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act grants a bouquet of protections to a party during the course of arbitral proceedings. It clarified that section 9 (3) restricts a party from seeking interim protection before a Court, once a tribunal has been constituted. After the amendment, once the Tribunal has been constituted, the parties can avail of the protection under section 17 by applying to the Tribunal.

Going further, the Division Bench, comprising Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice B.R. Madhusudhan Rao, relying on Lakshmi Rattan Engg. Works Ltd. Vs. CST and Hindusthan Commercial Bank Ltd. Vs Punnu Sahu explained that the word 'entertain' does not mean only admitting the matter, but it should be read to mean 'considering the matter on merits' or to 'proceed on merits.' The Bench elucidated that the onus was cast on the applicant to prove that the trial court had entertained the claim on merits. Only then, could the company file for protection before the trial court after constitution of the Arbitral Tribunal.

Anti-Arbitration Suit Giving Short-Shrift To Sec 16 A&C Act Is Hit By Order 7 Rule 11(d) Of CPC: Telangana High Court Reiterates

The Telangana High Court has reiterated and clarified that suits initiated before Civil Courts to curb arbitration proceedings ignore section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,1996, and deserve to be rejected under Order 7, Rule 11(d) as being barred by statute. The order was passed in a commercial court appeal by a Division Bench of Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice B.R.Madhusudhan Rao.

The Court further held that the unimpeachable conclusion is that any question as to the existence or validity of the arbitration agreement or a doubt as to the invocation of the arbitration clause must inevitably be decided by the Arbitral Tribunal. The parties cannot approach the Civil Courts for thwarting the arbitral process, particularly where the arbitration agreement has not been disputed. The case sought to be made out by the appellant is contrary to the position under the 1996 Act and the decisions referred to above.

Order Rejecting Jurisdictional Objections U/S 16 Of Arbitration Act Can Be Challenged U/S 34, Not Under Writ Jurisdiction: Telangana HC

Case Title: The State Of Telangana vs Ihhr Hospitality Private Limited

Case Title: WRIT PETITION No.1013 of 2025

The Telangana High Court bench of Justice P. Sam Koshy and Justice Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao has held that an order rejecting jurisdictional objections under Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) can only be challenged under section 34 of the Arbitration Act after an award is passed, and no writ petition against such an order can be entertained. The court held that since the Sole Arbitrator provided justification for the conclusion, there was no perversity in the order. However, this does not mean that the conclusion on limitation is correct on merits. The Petitioners may challenge the limitation objection if the Arbitral Award is rendered against them in a petition under section 34 and further in appeal under section 37 of the Arbitration Act.