SUPREME COURT
Fresh Section 11 Plea Not Maintainable After Abandonment of Arbitration: Supreme Court
Rajiv Gaddh v. Subodh Parkash [order dated April 01, 2026]
The Supreme Court has held that a party which abandons arbitration proceedings cannot subsequently seek appointment of an arbitrator on the same cause of action, setting aside a Punjab & Haryana High Court order that had allowed a fresh application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Allowing the appeal, the Bench of Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe held that such a course was impermissible in law. It emphasised that the scope of Section 11 is limited but the bar under procedural law would still apply. The Court observed, “The jurisdiction under Section 11 of the Act is primarily confined to determining existence of an arbitration agreement,” but clarified that statutory bars cannot be ignored.
Read at- https://thebarbulletin.com/supreme-court-fresh-section-11-plea-arbitration-not-maintainable/
Supreme Court Bars Merit Re-Examination Under Transnational Issue Estoppel; Imposes ₹25 Lakh Costs on Mylandlas
Nagaraj V. Mylandla vs PI Opportunities Fund-I [Decided on March 25, 2026]
The Supreme Court has ruled that the doctrine of ‘transnational issue estoppel’ applies to enforcement proceedings under Section 48 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, barring an enforcement court from undertaking a merits-based review or reopening factual issues that have been conclusively settled by the seat court. While an enforcement court must independently evaluate challenges raised on the ground of the ‘public policy of India’, a party cannot camouflage a rejected factual or contractual interpretation dispute as a public policy violation to circumvent the legislative policy of minimal interference and ‘one bite at the cherry’ in foreign award enforcement.
Read more at- https://thebarbulletin.com/supreme-court-transnational-issue-estoppel-arbitration-costs/
Dispute Clause Intending Future Consent Does Not Mean Binding Arbitration Agreement; Supreme Court Rejects Plea For Appointment Of Arbitrator
Nagreeeka Indcon Products vs Cargocare Logistics (India) [Decided on April 17, 2026]
The Supreme Court has held that a dispute resolution clause stating that disputes “can be settled by arbitration” does not constitute a binding arbitration agreement under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, because it indicates only the possibility of arbitration and not a mandatory or enforceable obligation to refer disputes to arbitration. Where the clause contemplates or necessitates further consent of the parties before reference, it is merely an agreement to enter into an arbitration agreement in future, and not an arbitration agreement in law.
Read more at- https://thebarbulletin.com/supreme-court-non-mandatory-arbitration-clause-invalid/
Venue Of Hearings Or Place Where Award Is Rendered Does Not Alter Seat Of Arbitration; Supreme Court Explains Supervisory Jurisdiction In Arbitral Proceedings
J&K Economic Reconstruction Agency vs Rash Builders India [Decided on April 15, 2026]
The Supreme Court has held that once the seat of arbitration is expressly designated by agreement of the parties, that seat becomes the juridical home of arbitration and operates akin to an exclusive jurisdiction clause. Consequently, only the courts of the seat have supervisory jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and challenges to the award. The venue of hearings or the place where the award is rendered does not alter the seat and does not confer jurisdiction on courts of that place, unless the seat is expressly changed by agreement of the parties.
Read more at- https://thebarbulletin.com/supreme-court-arbitration-seat-supervisory-jurisdiction/
Supreme Court Affirms Post-Award Section 9 Relief for Unsuccessful Parties Under Arbitration Law
Home Care Retail Marts vs Haresh N. Sanghvi [Decided on April 24, 2026]
The Supreme Court has held that Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 permits any party to an arbitration agreement, including a party unsuccessful in arbitration, to seek interim measures at the post-award stage so long as the award has not yet been enforced in accordance with Section 36. The expression “a party” cannot be read down to mean only an award-holder or successful party, since the statute draws no such distinction. The Court further held that unsuccessful parties cannot be denied the right to invoke Section 9 post-award, and the exercise of power in favour of an unsuccessful party is to be undertaken cautiously, with a higher threshold for interim relief.
Read more at- https://thebarbulletin.com/sc-post-award-section-9-relief-unsuccessful-parties/
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
‘Tragic Saga of Delay’: Bombay HC Upholds Termination of Redevelopment Agreement with Limited Modification
SSD Escatics Pvt. Ltd. v. Goregaon Pearl CHS Ltd. [Order dated March 30, 2026]
The Bombay High Court has upheld an arbitral award terminating a redevelopment agreement in favour of a housing society, holding that the developer had committed repeated contractual breaches and was not entitled to any compensation in view of an express contractual bar.
Read more at- https://thebarbulletin.com/bombay-hc-termination-redevelopment-agreement/
Concurrent Arbitral Findings No Bar to Setting Aside Award if Vital Evidence Ignored: Bombay HC
Kantilal Chhaganlal Securities Pvt Ltd v. Viveka Kumari & Anr. [Order dated April 02, 2026]
The Bombay High Court has set aside concurrent arbitral awards directing refund of ₹2 crore to an investor, holding that the findings were vitiated by failure to consider vital evidence going to the root of the dispute. Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan has observed that:
“That vital evidence that cuts to the root of the matter is ignored, would lead to patent illegality of an extent that warrants interference. Merely because there are two concurrent findings in the two-tier arbitration that has been conducted, the check and balance under the Section 34 jurisdiction would be no less a check and balance.”
Read more at- https://thebarbulletin.com/bombay-hc-set-aside-arbitral-award-vital-evidence/
Bombay High Court Warns of Criminal Consequences for Subverting Arbitral Process; Upholds ₹7.39 Crore Award
Shamshul Ishrar Khan v. Alka Chandewar [Order dated April 02, 2026]
The Bombay High Court has upheld an arbitral award granting over ₹7.39 crore to a partner upon dissolution of a partnership firm, holding that interference under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is impermissible unless perversity or illegality goes to the root of the matter.
At the same time Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan strongly indicated the petitioner’s conduct as a subversion of the arbitral process and warning of potential criminal contempt consequences:
“Considering the wanton and deliberate manner of conduct, it would not be appropriate to let this off lightly. This is a fit case for framing of charges for consideration of criminal consequences for such conduct. Yet, taking into account Khan’s purported ailments and the sheer persuasiveness on the part of Mr. Toor, I consider it appropriate to give Khan an opportunity to truly purge the contempt allege
Read more at- https://thebarbulletin.com/bombay-hc-arbitral-process-subversion-award-upheld/
Bombay High Court: Insurer Cannot Split a Single Claim Into Admitted and Denied Parts to Make the Unpaid Portion Non-Arbitrable
United India Insurance Company vs UPL Limited [Decided on April 22, 2026]
The Bombay High Court has clarified that under an insurance policy clause permitting arbitration only where the dispute is as to quantum and liability is otherwise admitted, once the insurer entertains a singular claim arising from one incident and sanctions it in part, the dispute regarding the unpaid part is a dispute relating to “how much” is payable and not “whether” any amount is payable, unless the entire claim is repudiated in toto. The Court also clarified that a later attempt by the insurer to artificially split the same claim into separate components of admitted and denied liability does not render the unpaid component non-arbitrable.
Read more at- https://thebarbulletin.com/insurer-cannot-split-claim-arbitration-bombay-hc/
CHHATISGARH HIGH COURT
Arbitrator’s Findings on Facts & Contract Interpretation Are Final Unless Patently Illegal; Chhattisgarh HC Refuses Relief to SECL
South Eastern Coalfields Limited vs M.K. Chaterjee [Decided on April 07, 2026]
The High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur Bench has ruled that the Arbitrator is the final authority on facts as well as interpretation of contract, unless the view taken is wholly unreasonable or beyond the scope of the contract. Looking to the limited scope of Section 37 of the Arbitration Act, the Court dismissed the appeal filed by South Eastern Coalfields Limited, observing that the findings of the Sole Arbitrator do not suffer from any patent illegality, and the award was neither arbitrary nor perverse.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Rajani Dubey and Justice Radhakishan Agrawal observed that the scope of interference under Section 34 and Section 37 of the Arbitration Act is extremely limited, and the Court does not sit in appeal over the findings of the Arbitrator and cannot re-appreciate evidence or substitute its own interpretation merely because another view is possible. Interference is permissible only when the award is vitiated by patent illegality, perversity, or is in conflict with the fundamental policy of Indian law or the most basic notions of justice or morality.
Read more at- https://thebarbulletin.com/chhattisgarh-hc-arbitrator-findings-final-secl-patent-illegality/
DELHI HIGH COURT
S.12 Non-Compliance After Change in Circumstances Fatal: Delhi HC Replaces Arbitrator with Financial Interest
Himanshu Shekhar v Prabhat Shekhar [Decided on 06-04-2026]
In a petition filed before the Delhi High Court under Section 14 read with Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) for termination of the mandate and substitution of the arbitrator, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Avneesh Jhingan allowed the petition and substituted the arbitrator for being ineligible.
Read more at- https://thebarbulletin.com/delhi-hc-arbitrator-replacement-section-12/
Not an Ordinary Litigant: Delhi HC Rejects Union’s Time-Barred Arbitration Challenge as Wrong Forum is No Excuse
Union of India v. PNSC Infrastructure Ltd. [Order dated February 18, 2026]
The Delhi High Court has refused to condone delay in a petition filed by the Union of India challenging an arbitral award, holding that it cannot take shelter under Section 14 of the Limitation Act by claiming it was pursuing remedies before a wrong forum.
The Court came down on the Union, noting that it had pursued proceedings before a court lacking jurisdiction for over two years and could not now plead bona fide mistake. The Court held that the Union of India, unlike an ordinary litigant, is expected to act with greater diligence and cannot rely on unreasonable explanations to overcome statutory limitation. Justice Subramonium Prasad has observed:
“This Court is of the considered opinion that the Petitioner cannot take umbrage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, to state that it was bona fide and diligently pursuing its remedy before a Court having no jurisdiction. It does not lie in the mouth of the Petitioner, who is not an ordinary litigant but the Union of India, to take shelter of such an explanation of having unknowingly pursued a remedy before the court having no jurisdiction for over two years.”
Read more at- https://thebarbulletin.com/delhi-hc-arbitration-delay-wrong-forum/
Distributorship Agreement Expressly Bars Any Liability For Business Losses; Delhi High Court Upholds Arbitral Award In Favour Of Bausch And Lomb
OSA Vendita vs Bausch and Lomb India [Decided on April 23, 2026]
The Delhi High Court has clarified that it will not interfere with a reasoned arbitral award merely because a party was denied permission to lead belated evidence, where the tribunal had granted sufficient opportunities earlier and the rejection was based on delay and lack of due justification. Procedural decisions of the arbitral tribunal fall within its power under Section 19 to regulate its own procedure, and such decisions do not amount to violation of party autonomy, natural justice, or public policy unless grave prejudice or patent illegality is shown.
Read more at- https://thebarbulletin.com/delhi-hc-arbitral-award-business-loss-claim/
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Mere Existence of Specific Performance Clause in Agreement Cannot Oust Relevance and Operation of Arbitration Clause: Punjab & Haryana HC
M/s VCA Estate Private Limited v. Baldev Raj & Ors. [Decided on 06-04-2026]
In a petition filed before the Punjab and Haryana High Court under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act), seeking appointment of a sole arbitrator, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Jasgurpreet Singh Puri allowed the petition and rejected the objections raised by the respondents while also appointing a sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes.
Read more at- https://thebarbulletin.com/arbitration-clause-prevails-over-specific-performance-hc/
TELANGANA HIGH COURT
Telangana HC: Judgment Debtor Cannot Resist Attachment to Stall Arbitral Award Execution Once Enforceable and Unstayed
Union of India vs Krishnapatnam Railway Company Limited [Decided on April 10, 2026]
The High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad Bench has clarified that where a decree-holder seeks attachment of a debt or bank account not in the possession of the judgment-debtor, Order XXI Rule 46 CPC empowers the executing court to attach such property by a written prohibitory order directed to the person in possession, and Order XXI Rule 46A CPC operates only after such attachment.
Read more at- https://thebarbulletin.com/telangana-hc-arbitral-award-execution-attachment-rules/
MADRAS HIGH COURT
Possession Of Premises Already Handed Over & Accepted; Madras High Court Quashes Arbitral Award For ‘Rental Loss’ In Favour Of VLCC Health Care
VLCC Health Care Limited vs Veeram Raja [Decided on April 16, 2026]
The Madras High Court has held that in proceedings under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the Court’s interference with an arbitral award is limited and cannot extend to re-appreciation of evidence merely because a party, despite due notice, chose not to participate in the arbitral proceedings. However, where a distinct and severable component of the award is patently illegal on admitted facts, such component alone can be set aside while sustaining the remainder of the award.
Read more at- https://thebarbulletin.com/madras-high-court-arbitral-award-rental-loss-quashed/