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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 144

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

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

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

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

Calcutta High Court

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

Case Title:Balasore Alloys Limited vs. Flynt Mining LLP

Case Number: AP-COM/896/2024

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

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

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

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

Case Number: AP-COM/39/2024

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

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

Case Title: TATA CAPITAL LIMITED VS KRISHNA KANT TIWARI

Case Number: AP-COM/1035/2024

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

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

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

Case Title: SATYA NARAYAN SHAW VERSUS SOURAV GHOSH

Case Number: AP-COM/154/2025

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

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

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

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

Case Number: AP/344/2022

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

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

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

Case Number: AP/15/2022

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

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

Delhi High Court

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

Case Title – Hariram & Ors. V. NHAI

Case No. – O.M.P. (COMM) 86/2021

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jharkhand High Court

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

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

LL Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Jha) 27

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

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

Karnataka High Court

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

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

Case Number: MFA No. 6525 Of 2016

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

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

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

Telangana High Court

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

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

Case Number: ARBITRATION APPLICATION No.163 of 2024

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

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

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

Case Title: Smt Somuri Ravali Versus Somuri Purnachandra Rao

Case Number: CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.739 of 2025

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

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