Top 25 Landmark Arbitration Judgments Delivered in December 2025

January 3, 2026

SUPREME COURT

Sub-Vendor Not A ‘Veritable Party’ To Arbitration Agreement; Supreme Court Quashes Appointment of Arbitrator

Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. BCL Secure Premises Pvt. Ltd., 2025 INSC 1401 [Decision dated December 9, 2025]

The Supreme Court has set aside a Bombay High Court order appointing an arbitrator under Section 11(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, holding that BCL Secure Premises Pvt. Ltd., a sub-vendor, failed to establish even a prima facie case that it was a “veritable party” to the arbitration agreement between Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (HPCL) and the principal contractor, AGC Networks Ltd.

Allowing HPCL’s appeal, a Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K.V. Viswanathan held that the High Court erred in referring the parties to arbitration. The Court reiterated that at the Section 11 stage, the referral court must prima facie examine the existence of an arbitration agreement and whether a non-signatory can be regarded as a “veritable party” to that agreement.

‘Substitution of arbitrator is Warranted When His Mandate Ceases to Exist’, SC Appoints Justice Najmi Waziri (Retd.) to effectuate expeditious resolution

Mohan Lal Fatehpuria v. Bharat Textiles & Ors., 2025 INSC 1409 [Decision dated December 10, 2025]

The Supreme Court has set aside a Delhi High Court order that declined to substitute the sole arbitrator and instead extended his mandate by four months under Section 29A(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Court held that once the statutory timeline for making an arbitral award expires, the arbitrator becomes functus officio and cannot continue.

The case stemmed from the failure of the sole arbitrator to deliver the award within the statutory timeline under Section 29A of the Arbitration Act, causing his mandate to lapse and leading the appellant to seek substitution. However, the Delhi High Court has rejected the application while extending the arbitrator’s mandate. This has prompted an appeal before the Supreme Court.

The bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Alok Aradhe noted that after excluding the COVID-19 limitation extension period, the arbitrator was required to deliver the award by February 28, 2023. As no application for extension was filed by the parties within time, the arbitrator’s mandate stood terminated by operation of Section 29A(4). Despite this, the High Court had extended the arbitrator’s tenure, which the Supreme Court found impermissible since there was no subsisting mandate to extend.

SC Finds Judgment in Bharat Drilling Case Inappropriate; Places Matter Before Chief Justice for Constituting Larger Bench to Reconsider Ratio

The State of Jharkhand v. The Indian Builders Jamshedpur [Decided on 05-12-2025]

In an appeal filed by the State of Jharkhand before the Supreme Court against a judgment by the Jharkhand High Court whereby an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, filed by the respondent-claimant was allowed, a Bench comprising Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar directed this order and judgment to be placed before the Chief Justice of India for appropriate orders to reconsider the ratio of Bharat Drilling & Foundation Treatment Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Jharkhand & Ors. (2009) 16 SCC 705.

The appeal by the respondent-claimant was filed against the judgment of the Civil Court, by which an arbitral award was set aside, and the objections filed by the State under Section 34 were allowed. By the arbitral award, the Arbitral Tribunal allowed specific claims, but the Civil Court set aside three claims on the ground that they were specifically prohibited under the contract between the parties.

Remedy Under Sec 32 A&C Act; SC Urges Law Ministry To Clarify Effect Of Termination Order & Arbitral Tribunal’s Power To Entertain Recall Application

Harshbir Singh Pannu vs Jaswinder Singh [Decided on December 08, 2025]

While acknowledging the apparent legislative lacuna in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which is silent on the remedy available to a party against an order terminating the arbitral proceedings, the Supreme Court ruled that any termination order is effectively an order under Section 32(2) of the Arbitration Act, and the arbitral tribunal possesses no inherent power to recall such an order.

The Court clarified that an arbitral tribunal is legally empowered to terminate proceedings under Section 38(2) of the Arbitration Act, when a party fails to pay its share of the arbitrator’s fees. Once such a termination occurs, the remedy available to the party is to seek the recall of the order before the Arbitral Tribunal itself.

The Court therefore urged the Department of Legal Affairs, Ministry of Law and Justice, to consider the prevailing uncertainty while the Arbitration and Conciliation Bill, 2024, is under consideration. At the same time, the Court suggested for explicitly providing for the nature and effect of a termination order and clarifying the tribunal’s power to entertain a recall application.

Entertaining Objections On Consortium Member’s Capacity At Section 11 Stage Would Amount To Mini Trial; SC Upholds Reference to Arbitration

Andhra Pradesh Power Generation Corporation Limited v. Tecpro Systems Ltd. & Ors., 2025 INSC 1447 [Decision dated December 17, 2025]

The Supreme Court has upheld an order of the Telangana High Court constituting an arbitral tribunal in a dispute arising out of an EPC contract awarded by Andhra Pradesh Power Generation Corporation Limited (APGENCO), holding that questions relating to the capacity of an individual consortium member to invoke arbitration must be decided by the arbitral tribunal and not at the referral stage….

Rejecting the challenge, a Bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar held that the scope of judicial scrutiny at the Section 11 stage is limited to a prima facie examination of the existence of an arbitration agreement, as mandated by Section 11(6A) of the Act. The Court reiterated that issues relating to capacity, authority, maintainability, or arbitrability fall within the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal under Section 16.

High Interest in Commercial Arrangements is Not Unconscionable, Supreme Court Upholds Arbitral Award Against BPL

BPL Limited v. Morgan Securities and Credits Private Limited, 2025 INSC 1380 [Decision dated December 4, 2025]

The Supreme Court has dismissed BPL Limited’s challenge to an arbitral award directing payment of over ₹27 crore with contractual interest, holding that the 36% p.a. rate under the Bill Discounting facility was part of a voluntary commercial bargain and could not be interfered with. A Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Sandeep Mehta held that the agreed contractual interest between parties of equal bargaining strength could not be termed unconscionable or contrary to public policy.

True Test of Arbitration Clause Is Parties’ Intention to Arbitrate, Not Mere Wording: Supreme Court Sets Aside Patna HC’s Stay on Arbitral Proceedings

Hindustan Construction Company Ltd. Through its Authorised Signatory Yogesh Dalal vs. Bihar Rajya Pul Nirman Limited and Other [Decided on 28th November 2025]

The Supreme Court sets aside a Patna High Court decision whereby the High Court ordered the suspension of the arbitration proceedings upon the arbitrator becoming de facto unable to perform his function. The Court ruled that once a court accepts the existence of a valid arbitration agreement and appoints an arbitrator, it cannot, later on, interfere on the same question, as it would amount to an appeal disguised as supervisory review.

BOMBAY HIGH COURT

Awarding Interest Beyond What is Claimed is Erroneous; Bombay HC Modifies Arbitral Award

TJSB Sahakari Bank Ltd. v. Amritlal P. Shah [Decision dated December 19, 2025]

The Bombay High Court has dismissed a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, challenging an arbitral award directing a cooperative bank to refund amounts secured through fixed deposits and LIC policies, holding that the plea of res judicata cannot be entertained in the absence of specific pleadings and production of prior proceedings.

Justice Sandeep V. Marne upheld the arbitral tribunal’s finding that a handwritten letter relied upon by the bank to assert security interest was procured by coercion and misrepresentation, and found no perversity or patent illegality warranting interference under Section 34.

Bombay High Court: Parties Cannot Add Fresh Allegations After Terminating Contract; Arbitral Award in Favour of Oakwood Upheld

Lloyds Realty Developer Limited vs. Oakwood Asia Pacific Limited [Decided on November 27, 2025]

The Bombay High Court has held that when a contract is terminated without citing any breaches, parties cannot subsequently introduce fresh allegations in arbitration or court proceedings to justify the termination. Dismissing a challenge under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the Court upheld an arbitral award directing Lloyds Realty Developer Limited to pay ₹59.85 lakh to Oakwood Asia Pacific Limited.

Mere Delay in Pronouncement is Not a Ground to Set Aside an Award; Bombay HC Upholds ₹43 Crore Arbitral Award

Sanjeev Malhotra v. SBI Global Factors Ltd. & Anr. [Decision dated December 23, 2025]

The Bombay High Court has dismissed a petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, challenging an arbitral award passed in favour of SBI Global Factors Ltd., holding that none of the grounds raised warranted judicial interference. Justice Sandeep V. Marne held that “mere delay in delivery of Award by itself cannot be a sufficient ground for setting aside the Award.”

Claim Not Pleaded Before Arbitrator Cannot Be Raised Under Section 34; Bombay HC Upholds Arbitral Award in NHAI Land Acquisition Case

Ku. Laxmibai d/o Harbhagwan Popali v. Union of India & Ors. [Decision dated December 12, 2025]

The Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, has dismissed an arbitration appeal filed by a landowner seeking parity in compensation with another landowner whose land was acquired for the same National Highway project, holding that a claim not pleaded before the arbitrator cannot be raised for the first time in proceedings under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Bombay High Court Backs Institutional ODR; Declines Plea to Replace Arbitrator

Amit Chaurasia v. ICICI Bank Ltd, [Decided on 10.12.2025]

The Bombay High Court has declined to entertain a petition seeking substitution of an arbitrator in a dispute holding that the plea was prima facie misconceived in light of the parties’ contractual agreement providing for online dispute resolution (ODR).

Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan noted that the governing terms and conditions of the loan contract accessible to the borrower through a provided digital link clearly contained the arbitration agreement and stipulated resolution of disputes through a named Online Dispute Resolution platform. The Court recorded that the petitioner did not deny receipt of intimations issued by the ODR agency, including notices for conciliation and subsequent commencement of arbitration.

Bombay HC Upholds Arbitral Award Against HPCL For Terminating Depot Contract; Slashes to ₹25 Lakh

Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Aegis Logistics Pvt. Ltd. [Decision dated December 19, 2025]

The Bombay High Court has upheld an arbitral award passed in favour of Aegis Logistics Pvt. Ltd., refusing to interfere with findings that Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (HPCL) had wrongfully terminated an Operating and Services Agreement relating to the Guntakal oil depot in Andhra Pradesh.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Sandeep V. Marne held that the arbitral tribunal had adopted a plausible and well-reasoned view while concluding that Aegis was justified in issuing a stop-work notice after serious safety deficiencies were flagged at the railway siding by the Oil Industry Safety Directorate (OISD).

DELHI HIGH COURT

Arbitrator Misdirected Himself, Returned Extraneous Findings: Delhi HC Upholds Setting Aside Of Arbitral Award

Shri Brajendra Khandelwal v. M/s Rajendra Iron Mart & Ors., 2025:DHC:11693:DB [Decision dated December 22, 2025]

The Delhi High Court has dismissed an appeal challenging the setting aside of an arbitral award in a partnership dispute, holding that the arbitrator had ‘misdirected himself’ and returned findings that were ‘extraneous’ to the claimant’s own case. A Division Bench comprising Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Madhu Jain upheld the Single Judge’s order, which had interfered with the award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Delhi High Court: Appeal Under Section 37 A&C Act Maintainable Even If Section 34 Plea Dismissed on Technical Grounds

Primemover Mobility Technologies Pvt Ltd v. Sanmarg Infra Tech Ltd, [Decided on 18.12.2025]

The Delhi High Court has held that an appeal under Section 37(1)(c) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is maintainable even where an application under Section 34 has been dismissed on technical or procedural grounds, including non-compliance with statutory pre-deposit requirements.

A Division Bench of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta, while allowing an appeal filed by Primemover Mobility Technologies Pvt. Ltd., clarified that Section 37(1)(c) is not confined to refusals on merits alone but extends to the entire spectrum of orders passed under Section 34.

Relying on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Chintels India Ltd. v. Bhayana Builders Pvt. Ltd., 2021 INSC 76, the Court observed that even a dismissal of a Section 34 petition on grounds such as limitation or procedural default amounts to a refusal to set aside the arbitral award and is therefore appealable under Section 37.

Delhi HC: Sec 2(2) Arbitration Act Bar Supervisory Jurisdiction Of Indian Courts If Designated Seat Is Outside India

DELHI AIRPORT METRO EXPRESS vs CONSTRUCCIONES Y AUXILIAR DE FERROCARRILES [Decided on December 24, 2025]

The Delhi High Court ruled that the designation of a place as the venue, coupled with the adoption of supranational rules (like the ICC Rules), is a positive indicator that the place is the juridical seat. Once the seat is determined, it acts as an exclusive jurisdiction clause, vesting supervisory power only in the courts of that seat.

While reaffirming the principles from BGS SGS SOMA JV v. NHPC LTD, which laid down a three-condition test for when a designated “venue” should be construed as the “seat”, the Court clarified that when the seat of arbitration is outside India, the bar under Section 2(2) of the Arbitration Act applies, and the jurisdiction of Indian courts is excluded, rendering Part I of the Act inapplicable.

The Division Bench comprising Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla observed from perusal of Clause 22.3 of the Supply Contract, that it expressly designates London as the “seat” of the arbitration. This is an unambiguous choice, leaving no room for interpretation. Therefore, the juridical seat is London, and Part I of the Arbitration Act is excluded by necessary implication.

Delhi HC Directs Arbitral Tribunal to Decide Objections under S. 16 of the A&C Act After Recording Complete Evidence in Matter Against Hero Motocorp Limited

Rita Kalita v. Hero Motocorp Limited [Decided on 22-12-2025]

In a petition filed before the Delhi High Court against an order dated 10-12-2025 passed by the Arbitral Tribunal whereby the petitioner’s application under Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was held to be not maintainable, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Girish Kathpalia upheld the impugned order and directed the Arbitral Tribunal to record complete evidence and then take a decision on the objections under Section 16, before proceeding on the merits of the dispute.

Delhi High Court upholds injunction over ICC Arbitration on account of Arbitrator’s Non-Disclosure; Affirms India as Seat of Arbitration

MSA Global LLC Oman v. Engineering Projects India Ltd., [Judgment dated December 12, 2025]

The Delhi High Court has dismissed an appeal challenging an interim order that restrained the continuation of an ICC arbitration, holding that Indian courts had jurisdiction to grant an anti-arbitration injunction where the arbitral process was found to be oppressive and tainted by serious non-disclosure by an arbitrator. The Court held that the “juridical seat of arbitration being India confers exclusive supervisory jurisdiction upon the Indian courts, and consequently, any anti-suit injunction issued by the Singapore court acting merely as the venue jurisdiction cannot attain conclusive effect so as to operate as res judicata before the seat court”

A Division Bench of Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar upheld the Single Judge’s July 25, 2025, order injuncting the arbitration between Engineering Projects India Ltd. (EPIL), a Government of India PSU, and MSA Global LLC, Oman.

“Any steps taken to legitimise the fraud cannot be sustained”; Delhi HC sets aside ex-parte arbitral award

Smt. Keshar & Anr. v. Sandeep Lakra & Anr., [Decision dated December 6, 2025]

The Delhi High Court has set aside a 2008 ex parte arbitral award that had ordered specific performance of an Agreement to Sell executed by an illiterate villager. Justice Jasmeet Singh held that the Agreement to Sell was vitiated by fraud and once the underlying contract itself failed, the arbitration clause also collapsed, ‘rendering the subject matter non-arbitrable.’

The dispute arose from a 2005 document purportedly executed by the petitioner, an illiterate villager displaced from Nangal Dewat, allegedly agreeing to sell her share in an allotted rehabilitation plot for ₹1.23 crore. It was submitted that her thumb impressions had been taken on blank papers by relatives and property dealers, and that the family only learnt of the alleged transaction when execution proceedings were initiated. The respondent claimed the agreement was genuine and that ₹7 lakh had been paid as an advance.

The High Court, however, held that the document was inherently suspicious. The Agreement showed Petitioner owning half the property, while all official records, including the Relinquishment Deed, established she owned only 1/12th. The Court noted this inconsistency as clear evidence of manipulation.

Delhi HC Records Settlement in Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Award

Seaway Falcon AS v. Jagson International Limited. [Decision dated November 11, 2025]

The Delhi High Court has recorded a negotiated settlement between Seaway Falcon AS and Jagson International Ltd. in proceedings seeking enforcement of a Foreign Arbitral Award dated 5 June 2025. Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav noted that email exchanges placed on record showed the judgment debtor’s willingness to satisfy the award, prompting the Court to dispose of the matter on the basis of mutually agreed terms.

Clerical or Self-Inflicted Grounds Are Not ‘Sufficient Cause’: Delhi HC Refuses to Condon Delay in Arbitration Appeal

M/s GoGoal Hydro Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited & Ors. [Decision dated December 2, 2025]

The Delhi High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by M/s GoGoal Hydro Pvt. Ltd. against Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited (BHEL), holding the challenge to a 2019 arbitral award barred by limitation and unsupported by any “sufficient cause” for delay. The Bench of Justice Anil Kshetrapal and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar held that the appellant failed to demonstrate any exceptional or bona fide reason warranting condonation.

DDA Lease Clauses Constitute Arbitration Agreement; Delhi High Court Appoints Sole Arbitrator

JHANKAR BANQUETS THROUGH ITS PARTNER MR. MAHESH KAPOOR v. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY [Date of Decision: 26th November, 2025]

The Delhi High Court has ruled that the dispute resolution provisions in the lease and licence deeds executed between Jhankar Banquets and the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) qualify as valid arbitration agreements, clearing the way for arbitration in a nearly three-decade-old commercial dispute. Justice Jyoti Singh allowed two petitions filed under Sections 11(5) and 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Executing Court Cannot Compel Non-Signatory While Enforcing Section 17 Order: Delhi HC Curbs Overreach in Section 17 Enforcement

Jamia Hamdard Deemed to be University vs Asad Mueed and Ors. [Decided on 17 December 2025]

The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the executing court’s order, and held that an executing court cannot, while enforcing an arbitral tribunal’s Section 17 order, compel a non-signatory third party to issue a Consent of Affiliation or adjudicate statutory regulatory compliance.

CALCUTTA HIGH COURT

Section 14 Cannot Be Used to Bypass Section 13 A&C Act Procedure: Calcutta High Court Dismisses Petition

SREI Equipment Finance Limited v. SEIRRA Infraventure Private Limited [Decided on November 28th, 2025]

The Calcutta High Court drew a clear distinction between challenges to an arbitrator under Section 12(1) and Section 13 read with the Fifth Schedule, and those arising under Section 12(5) and Section 14 read with the Seventh Schedule of the Act. The court rejected a petition under Section 14 read with Section 15 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking termination of the mandate of a learned Sole Arbitrator.

KERALA HIGH COURT

Substantive Review of Orders Issued u/s 11 of A&C Act is not Maintainable in Absence of Statutory Provision: Kerala High Court

Koshy Phillip v. Thomas P. Mathew & Ors., 2025:KER:96125 [Decision dated December 12, 2025]

The Kerala High Court has dismissed a review petition challenging the dismissal of an arbitration request under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, holding that substantive review of such orders is not maintainable in the absence of an express statutory provision. Justice S. Manu held that the “courts considering applications under S.11 should bear in mind the policy of minimum and constricted judicial intervention, especially in the reference stage.” The Court held that even after the 2015 amendment, petitions under Section 11(6) cannot be treated in the same manner as ordinary litigation, as doing so would undermine the objective of expeditious resolution of disputes.

Delhi HC: Eviction Under Senior Citizens Act Cannot Be Ordered as a Matter of Course; Rights of All Parties Must Be Balanced

January 24, 2026

Delhi High Court: Expression ‘Public Servant’ Under Rule 11(2) Of Export Inspection Agency Employees Rules, 1978; Includes ‘Retired Public Servant’

January 23, 2026

Legitimate Criticism Of Government Is No Yardstick For State Action; Punjab & Haryana HC Upholds Constitutional Protection To Fair Reporting

January 23, 2026

Top 25 Landmark Arbitration Judgments Delivered in December 2025

Top 25 Landmark Arbitration Judgments Delivered in December 2025

SUPREME COURT

BOMBAY HIGH COURT

DELHI HIGH COURT

CALCUTTA HIGH COURT

KERALA HIGH COURT

Other Posts

Delhi HC: Eviction Under Senior Citizens Act Cannot Be Ordered as a Matter of Course; Rights of All Parties Must Be Balanced

Delhi High Court: Expression ‘Public Servant’ Under Rule 11(2) Of Export Inspection Agency Employees Rules, 1978; Includes ‘Retired Public Servant’

Legitimate Criticism Of Government Is No Yardstick For State Action; Punjab & Haryana HC Upholds Constitutional Protection To Fair Reporting

Categories