SUPREME COURT
SC Directs ICA to Appoint Former Supreme Court Judge as Sole Arbitrator Amid Dispute Over Administrative Fees
Kirloskar Vs Indian Council of Arbitration, Decided on 19.01.2026
The Supreme Court on Monday disposed of an arbitration petition arising out of a long-standing joint venture dispute, directing the Indian Council of Arbitration (ICA) to appoint a former Supreme Court judge as the sole arbitrator.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Justice Surya Kant, Justice Dipankar Datta, and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing a petition filed by Kirloskar Brothers Limited and another party, stemming from disputes under a joint venture agreement executed in 1988 and subsequent developments that led to multiple proceedings before various fora, including the NCLT, Mumbai, and a Commercial Court in Pune.
Read more- https://thebarbulletin.com/sc-directs-ica-appoint-former-sc-judge-arbitrator/
Date of Commencement of Arbitral Proceedings Is Receipt of Section 21 Notice, Not Filing of Section 11 Petition; SC Sets Aside Karnataka HC Decision
Regenta Hotels Private Limited vs. M/s Hotel Grand Centre Point and Others [Decided on January 7, 2026]
The objective of the statutory scheme under the Arbitration Act, 1996, would become obsolete if the date of commencement of the arbitration proceeding under Section 21 of the Act is allowed to be substituted by the date of filing of a Section 11 petition. The Supreme Court recently, in a Special Leave Petition, challenging the decision passed by the Karnataka HC, clarified that for the mandate mentioned under Section 9(2) concerning interim order limitation, the commencement of the arbitral proceeding is to be construed in consonance with the date on which the Section 21 notice invoking arbitration is received by the opposite party.
Read More- https://thebarbulletin.com/arbitral-proceedings-commence-section-21-notice-supreme-court/
Arbitral Tribunal Can Decide All Disputes Arising From Contract; Section 21 Notice Not Mandatory For Each Claim: Supreme Court
M/s Bhagheeratha Engineering Ltd. v. State of Kerala, 2026 INSC 4 [Decision dated January 5, 2026]
The Supreme Court has allowed an appeal filed by M/s Bhagheeratha Engineering Ltd., holding that an arbitral tribunal is competent to adjudicate all disputes arising out of or connected with the contract, and non-issuance of a separate notice under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, for each claim is not fatal.
A Bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K.V. Viswanathan set aside the Kerala High Court’s decision, and held that “Section 21 is concerned only with determining the commencement of the dispute for the purpose of reckoning limitation. There is no mandatory prerequisite for issuance of a Section 21 notice prior to the commencement of Arbitration. Issuance of a Section 21 notice may come to the aid of parties and the arbitrator in determining the limitation for the claim. Failure to issue a Section 21 notice would not be fatal to a party in Arbitration if the claim is otherwise valid and the disputes arbitrable.”
Read more- https://thebarbulletin.com/section-21-notice-not-mandatory-each-claim-supreme-court/
Right To Object Appointment Of Ineligible Arbitrator Can’t Be Taken Away Absent Express Waiver; SC Favours Bhadra International & Quashes Arbitral Award
Bhadra International vs Airports Authority of India [Decided on January 05, 2025]
In a relief to Bhadra International, the Supreme Court ruled that the words “an express agreement in writing” in the proviso to Section 12(5) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, mean that the right to object to the appointment of an ineligible arbitrator cannot be taken away by mere implication. The agreement referred to in the proviso must be a clear, unequivocal written agreement.
The Court clarified that the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, does not recognise the conferral of jurisdiction on an arbitral tribunal without the consent of the parties. Accordingly, by entering into an express agreement in writing as per the proviso to Section 12(5) of the 1996 Act, the parties not only waive the ineligibility of the proposed arbitrator but also consent to his appointment.
Read more- https://thebarbulletin.com/supreme-court-ineligible-arbitrator-express-waiver/
Supreme Court: Mere Creation Of Specific Forum As Substitute For Civil Court Is Not Enough To Accept Inference Of Implicit Non-Arbitrability
Motilal Oswal Financial Services Ltd vs Santosh Cordeiro [Decided on January 05, 2025]
In a dispute arising from a Leave and License Agreement between Motilal Oswal Financial Services (the appellant/Licensee) and Santosh Cordeiro (the respondent/Licensor) for a property in Malad (West), Mumbai, the Supreme Court has ruled that when two or more persons agree to refer a matter to arbitration, Section 28 of the Contract Act, 1872, will not render that agreement invalid. Section 28, which speaks of agreements in restraint of legal proceedings being void, has two important exceptions.
The Court explained that Section 28 of the Contract Act shall not render illegal a contract, by which two or more persons agree that any dispute which may arise between them in respect of any subject or class of subjects shall be referred to arbitration, and that only the amount awarded in such arbitration shall be recoverable in respect of the dispute so referred.
Read more- https://thebarbulletin.com/supreme-court-implicit-non-arbitrability-arbitration-forum/
‘Court’ Under Section 29A Means Civil Court, Not High Court Appointing Arbitrator: Supreme Court Clarifies Jurisdiction To Extend Arbitral Timelines
Jagdeep Chowgule v. Sheela Chowgule & Ors., 2026 INSC 92 [Decision dated January 29, 2026]
The Supreme Court has clarified that applications seeking extension of time for making arbitral awards under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 must be filed before the “Court” as defined under Section 2(1)(e) of the Act, and not before the High Court merely because the arbitrator was appointed by it under Section 11.
A Bench comprising Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice R. Mahadevan set aside the judgment of the Bombay High Court at Goa, which had held that where an arbitral tribunal is constituted by the High Court under Section 11, only the High Court would have jurisdiction to entertain an application under Section 29A(4) for extension of time.
Read more- https://thebarbulletin.com/supreme-court-section-29a-court-arbitral-extensions/
BOCW & Cess Acts Are ‘Subsequent Legislations’ Where Implementation Mechanism Was Absent; SC Upholds Arbitral Awards Against NHAI
Prakash Atlanta (JV) v. National Highways Authority of India & Connected Appeals [Decision dated January 20, 2026]
The Supreme Court has upheld a series of arbitral awards directing reimbursement of Building and Other Construction Workers (BOCW) cess deducted from payments made to contractors executing national highway projects, holding that the BOCW Act, 1996 and the Building and Other Construction Workers’ Welfare Cess Act, 1996 could be treated as “subsequent legislation” under NHAI contracts where the statutory machinery for levy and utilisation of cess was not operational at the relevant time.
Read more- https://thebarbulletin.com/sc-bocw-cess-acts-subsequent-legislation-arbitral-awards-nhai/
Supreme Court Restores ₹27 Cr Liquidated Damages in Solar Power Dispute, Curbs Appellate Interference
M/s Saisudhir Energy Ltd. v. M/s NTPC Vidyut Vyapar Nigam Ltd. & Connected Matter [Decision dated January 30, 2026]
The Supreme Court has restored a Delhi High Court Single Judge’s order awarding liquidated damages of over ₹27 crore against M/s Saisudhir Energy Ltd (SEL) for delay in commissioning a solar power project under the Jawaharlal Nehru National Solar Mission, holding that the High Court Division Bench exceeded its appellate jurisdiction by reworking the compensation.
Read more- https://thebarbulletin.com/supreme-court-restores-liquidated-damages-solar-dispute/
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
‘High Court is the ‘Court’ for Filing Application u/S. 36 of A&C Act for Enforcing Domestic Award Regarding an International Commercial Arbitration’: Allahabad HC
Shri Colonizers and Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Abha Gupta [Decided on 16-12-2025]
In an appeal filed before the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952, to challenge a judgment of a Single Judge of this Court functioning as a commercial division under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, a Division Bench of Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Rajeev Bharti did not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment and refused to interfere with the same while dismissing the special appeal.
Read more- https://thebarbulletin.com/allahabad-hc-section-36-international-arbitration-award/
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Unilaterally Appointed Sole Arbitrator’s Award Non-Est and Unenforceable; Bombay High Court Dismisses L&T Finance’s Execution Plea
L & T Finance Ltd. v. Sangeeta Bhansali & Anr.,, 2026:BHC-OS:1426, [Pronounced on January 17, 2026]
The Bombay High Court has dismissed a commercial execution application filed by L&T Finance Ltd., holding that the arbitral award dated August 7, 2019 is non-est in law, void ab initio and incapable of execution, as the sole arbitrator had been unilaterally appointed by the lender, rendering him de jure ineligible under Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Read more- https://thebarbulletin.com/bombay-hc-unilateral-arbitrator-award-non-est/
Bombay HC: Award Imposing Monetary Liability In Terrorem, Contingent Upon Failure To Perform Primary Obligation, Can’t Be Set Aside Under Sec 34 Arbitration Act
Lotus Logistics and Developers vs Evertop Apartments Cooperative Housing Society [Decided on January 13, 2025]
The Bombay High Court has clarified that the established legal principle that a party who terminates a contract cannot subsequently sue for its specific performance, is subject to exceptions. Such an election to terminate can be negated by an intervening event, such as the subsequent conduct of the parties indicating a revival of the contract.
The Court explained that a solemn undertaking given or a judicial admission made in court proceedings by the defaulting party to perform its contractual obligations, subsequent to the other party’s termination of the contract, can revive the contract or form a new foundation for the right of the aggrieved party to seek specific performance.
Read more- https://thebarbulletin.com/bombay-hc-in-terrorem-award-section-34/
Employer in Breach Can’t Bar Escalation Claims: Bombay HC Upholds Arbitral Award Granting ₹10.54 Crore to Contractor
The Chief Engineer & Ors. v. Hule Constructions Private Limited & Ors, [Pronounced on January 29, 2026]
The Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, has dismissed a commercial arbitration appeal filed by State authorities and upheld an arbitral award granting over ₹10.54 crore to Hule Constructions Private Limited, holding that no ground was made out for interference under Sections 34 or 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
A Division Bench of Justice Arun R. Pedneker and Justice Vaishali Patil-Jadhav upheld the arbitrator’s grant of escalation and compensation for idling of machinery and labour, holding that once breach of contract by the employer was established, the defaulting party could not rely on contractual clauses barring escalation or such claims to resist liability.
Read more- https://thebarbulletin.com/employer-breach-cannot-bar-escalation-claims-bombay-hc/
Bombay HC Denies Interim Relief to Developer After 11-Year Delay in Redevelopment; Appoints Justice Anuja Prabhudesai (Retd.) as Sole Arbitrator
ISON Builders LLP v. Om Sai Ram Cooperative Housing Society (Proposed) & Ors., [Decided on January 23, 2026]
The Bombay High Court has dismissed a petition filed by ISON Builders LLP seeking interim protection against termination of a redevelopment agreement, holding that the developer had failed to demonstrate any prima facie case after causing inordinate delay of over eleven years in the redevelopment of municipal tenanted property. The Court held that the rights of municipal tenants to timely and safe redevelopment must prevail over a developer’s commercial interests.
Read more- https://thebarbulletin.com/bombay-hc-redevelopment-delay-interim-relief-denied/
Interim Measures Can Be Granted Against Third Parties to Protect Arbitral Claims: Bombay HC directed Axis Bank To Deposit Title Deeds in Loan Takeover Dispute
Aditya Birla Housing Finance Ltd. v. Axis Bank Ltd. & Ors. [Decision dated January 19, 2026]
The Bombay High Court has directed that the title deeds of a mortgaged property remain deposited with the Registry of the Court during the pendency of arbitral proceedings, after finding a prima facie case that Axis Bank acted in a manner that enabled borrowers to misuse a loan takeover transaction, leaving the petitioner’s substantial lending unsecured.
Read more- https://thebarbulletin.com/bombay-hc-interim-measures-third-parties-loan-takeover/
DELHI HIGH COURT
Delhi High Court Extends Arbitral Mandate Without Penalty; Refuses Substitution Where Award Ready for Pronouncement
M/S Inderjit Mehta Constructions Ltd v. Union of India, [Decided on 16.12.2025]
The Delhi High Court has refused to substitute the sole arbitrator and instead granted a short, final extension of the arbitral mandate to enable pronouncement of the award, holding that substitution at the terminal stage would defeat the objective of expeditious dispute resolution.
The petition was filed under Sections 14 and 15(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking substitution of the arbitrator on the ground that the mandate had expired by efflux of time. The dispute arose out of a construction contract awarded by the Union of India. Arbitration was initially conducted by a sole arbitrator who passed away, following which Justice Vikramjit Sen, former Judge, Supreme Court of India was appointed as the sole arbitrator by the High Court.
Read more- https://thebarbulletin.com/delhi-hc-arbitral-mandate-extension-refuses-substitution/
Delhi HC Partly Upholds Arbitral Award in BHEL–Delkon Dispute; Corrects Commencement Of Post-Award Interest u/s 31(7)(b)
Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited v. Delkon India Private Limited [Decision dated January 08, 2025]
The Delhi High Court has partly allowed an appeal filed by Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited (BHEL) under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, upholding the arbitral award on merits while setting aside the grant of pre-reference and pendente lite interest in favour of Delkon India Pvt. Ltd. The Division Bench of Justices V. Kameswar Rao and Vinod Kumar affirmed the findings of the Sole Arbitrator and the District Judge insofar as they upheld Delkon’s counterclaims arising out of the illegal termination of the contract, but interfered with the award of interest holding it to be contrary to the contractual bar.
Read more- https://thebarbulletin.com/bhel-delkon-arbitration-award-post-award-interest-delhi-hc/
Delhi High Court Declines Interim Relief to Catering Licensee Against IRCTC; Refuses to Interfere with Arbitrator’s Order
RK Associates and Hoteliers Pvt Ltd v. IRCTC, [Decided on 19.01.2026]
The Delhi High Court has dismissed an appeal filed under Section 37(2)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, challenging an interim order of the Sole Arbitrator which had refused to grant interim relief to a catering service provider against Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation Limited (IRCTC).
Read more- https://thebarbulletin.com/delhi-hc-declines-interim-relief-irctc-catering/
Delhi High Court Rejects IOC’s Bid to Expand Section 34 Challenge Against Arbitral Award as Time-Barred
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd v. Suzlon Energy Ltd, [Decided on 13.01.2026]
The Delhi High Court has dismissed an application filed by Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (IOCL) seeking amendment of the prayer clause in its petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, holding that such an amendment would impermissibly revive a time-barred challenge and deprive the opposite party of accrued rights.
Read more- https://thebarbulletin.com/delhi-high-court-iocl-section-34-amendment-time-barred/
Delhi High Court Extends Sole Arbitrator’s Mandate by One Year in NCC–IOCL Arbitration
NCC Ltd v. IOCL, [Decided on 14.01.2026]
The Delhi High Court has extended the mandate of the Sole Arbitrator by one year in a commercial arbitration between NCC Limited and Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOCL), holding that sufficient cause exists under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Court rejected IOCL’s plea for substitution, noting that terminating the arbitrator at an advanced stage would result in unnecessary delays and wastage of time and resources.
Justice Jasmeet Singh passed the order on a petition filed by NCC seeking extension for concluding arbitral proceedings arising out of a major infrastructure contract for civil, structural, and underground piping works at IOCL’s Paradip Refinery Project.
Read more- https://thebarbulletin.com/delhi-hc-extends-arbitrator-mandate-ncc-iocl/
Delay in Pronouncement Does Not Vitiate Arbitral Award if No Prejudice is Established: Delhi High Court
Om Prakash v. Smt. Laxmi Maurya [Decision dated January 13, 2026]
The Delhi High Court has dismissed an appeal challenging an arbitral award directing repayment of a friendly loan of ₹6 lakh along with interest, holding that mere delay in pronouncement of the arbitral award is not a ground to set it aside unless prejudice is demonstrated.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Amit Mahajan was hearing an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, against an order of the Commercial Court which had dismissed objections to an arbitral award dated 15 November 2019.
Read more-https://thebarbulletin.com/delay-arbitral-award-not-vitiate-delhi-hc/
Delhi HC Holds Interest on Arbitral Award Ceases Only When Decree Holder Has Effective Access to Deposited Amount; Rejects Claim For Interest Till 2022
Shenzhen Shandong Nuclear Power Construction Company Limited v. Vedanta Limited, [Judgment Pronounced on January 12, 2026]
The Delhi High Court held that the deposit of money or bank guarantee doesn’t barred accrual of interest until the award holder has full access to the deposited amount in accordance with Order XXI Rule 1(4) of the CPC. The Court held that in the present case, the “interest clock” stopped running on August 8, 2019, and not on March 23, 2018, or November 2022, as contended by the parties.
Read more- https://thebarbulletin.com/interest-arbitral-award-effective-access-delhi-hc/
Resolution Plan Extinguishes Pending Arbitration Claims: Delhi HC Terminates Pending Arbitral Proceedings
Tata Steel Limited v. Ministry of Corporate Affairs & Anr. [Decision dated 9 January 2026]
The Delhi High Court has held that once a resolution plan is approved under Section 31 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC), all claims not forming part of the plan stand extinguished, including pending arbitral claims, and cannot be pursued thereafter.
Loan Agreement and Deed of Guarantee Form Single Composite Transaction; Delhi HC Appoints Sole Arbitrator
Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Ltd v. Bhoruka Classic Finance Pvt Ltd, [Decided on 05.12.2026]
The Delhi High Court has held that a loan agreement and a deed of personal guarantee executed in relation to the same financial transaction cannot be treated as independent and unrelated contracts for the purposes of dispute resolution. Justice Jasmeet Singh observed that both documents formed part of a single composite commercial arrangement and were meant to secure the same underlying obligations.
Read more- https://thebarbulletin.com/delhi-hc-loan-guarantee-composite-transaction-sole-arbitrator/
Separate BCCI Contract Cannnot Be Imported To Modify Express Global Rights Agreement; Delhi HC Orders Prasar Bharti To Indemnify Shortfall On Pro-Rata Basis
Prasar Bharti vs Stracon India [Decided on January 23, 2026]
The Delhi High Court has clarified that the interpretation of contractual terms is primarily for an arbitrator to decide. A court’s power to interfere under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act is limited and does not extend to substituting its own view for a plausible view taken by the arbitrator.
The Court observed that an arbitral award may be set aside in part if the portion found to be invalid is clearly severable and not intrinsically intertwined with the valid portion of the award. An arbitrator commits a patent illegality by rewriting the terms of a contract, such as by introducing a new condition that was not part of the agreement between the parties.
Read more- https://thebarbulletin.com/delhi-hc-bcci-contract-cannot-modify-global-rights-agreement/
No Injunction Against Encashment of Unconditional Performance Bank Guarantee in Coal Mining Dispute: Delhi High Court
Black Gold Resources Private Ltd. v. International Coal Ventures Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., [Judgment dated 17 December 2025]
The Delhi High Court dismissed a Section 9 petition under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking interim protection against termination of a coal mining services contract and encashment of a performance bank guarantee (PBG) of USD 10.535 million, holding that no case of irretrievable injustice, special equities, or fraud was made out to justify interference with an unconditional bank guarantee.
DISTRICT COURT
Arbitration Cannot Shield Criminality; Delhi Court Orders FIR in ₹107.77 Crore DMI Finance Loan Fraud Case
DMI Finance Private Ltd. v. State, [Decided on 24.01.2026]
The Tis Hazari Court has directed registration of an FIR against several real estate developers and their associates in a ₹107.77 crore loan fraud case filed by DMI Finance Private Ltd., holding that allegations of diversion and siphoning of loan funds disclose cognizable criminal offences and cannot be brushed aside as a mere commercial dispute.
The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts directed the police to register an FIR against the borrowers, mortgagors and guarantors involved in the transaction.
Read more- https://thebarbulletin.com/arbitration-cannot-shield-criminality-delhi-court-fir-loan-fraud/