Supreme Court
SC : Contractual Bar Can Oust Arbitrator’s Power to Award Pre-Reference Interest
North-Eastern Electric Power Corporation Limited (NEEPCO) vs Astra Construction Pvt Ltd [Decided on September 22, 2026]
The Supreme Court has held that an express, independent bar on delayed payments, standing apart from any dispute, ousts the arbitrator’s power to award pre-reference interest under Section 31(7)(a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Court explained that the opening words ‘unless otherwise agreed by the parties’ expressly subordinate the arbitrator’s statutory power to the bargain between the parties. An express contractual bar suffices to exclude that power, even if not specifically addressed to the arbitrator’s jurisdiction.
National Skill Development Corporation vs Surya Wires Private Limited [Decided on September 08, 2026]
The Supreme Court has ruled that where a Personal Guarantee is contractually deemed part of the Loan Agreement ‘as if set out herein in extension’, the arbitration clause therein stands incorporated by reference, and the guarantor cannot be deleted from the arbitral array merely because he signed only in his personal capacity. The Court explained that a Personal Guarantee expressly enumerated as a ‘Facility Agreement’ in the Schedules to a Loan Agreement, and deemed thereunder to form part of the Loan Agreement ‘as if set out herein in extension’, is an integral and inseparable component of the Loan Agreement for all purposes, including dispute resolution.
Bombay High Court
Mohammed Sharif Hanif Khan v. Apna Sahakari Bank Limited [Order dated September 16, 2026]
The Bombay High Court has set aside an arbitral award directing respondents to pay ₹18.16 lakh to Apna Sahakari Bank Ltd., holding that the award suffered from breach of natural justice and patent illegality.
Justice Aarti Sathe was hearing a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, challenging an award dated March 6, 2024, passed under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act. The dispute arose from a housing loan of ₹7.70 lakh availed by the petitioner in 2006. He claimed that he had repaid the loan in 2023, but the Bank did not return his title documents. He later learnt that the Bank was treating him as a co-borrower/surety in connection with a separate cash-credit facility availed by another respondent.
Delhi High Court
Steel Authority of India vs Norvic Shipping North America INC [Decided on September 24, 2026]
Holding patent illegality ground inapplicable to international commercial arbitration, the Delhi High Court ruled that force majeure requires ‘prevention’ and not mere ‘hardship’, and that an invalid Notice of Readiness (NOR) cannot be cured by subsequent events. The Court said that where a Contract of Affreightment requires the charterer to be ‘prevented’ from discharging obligations for force majeure to apply, and the Government has declared port and cargo handling services as essential during the COVID-19 pandemic, the charterer cannot invoke force majeure merely because discharge operations were rendered more difficult.
Airport Handling Services vs Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur [Decided on September 28, 2026]
The Delhi High Court has clarified that Rule 11(3) of the Consumer Protection (Conditions of Service of President and Members of the State Commission or District Commission) Model Rules, 2020, regulates the office of the SCDRC President and does not, by itself, attract the Seventh Schedule or trigger the written-waiver requirement under the proviso to Section 12(5) of the Arbitration Act. The Court held that a breach of a service-condition rule governing the office held by an arbitrator may entail consequences under the law regulating that office, but it does not automatically terminate the arbitral mandate under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Plausible View Is Not Enough for Interference: Delhi HC Restores NIL Arbitral Award
Otsuka Chemical (India) Pvt Ltd vs Trans Engineers India [Decided on September 01, 2026]
While restoring the NIL Arbitral Award passed by the Sole Arbitrator, the Delhi High Court has reiterated that courts under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration Act cannot re-appreciate evidence or substitute their interpretation of contractual terms for that of the arbitrator, even where an alternative view may appear more plausible. The High Court explained that jurisdiction of a court under Section 34, and consequently under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, is limited and supervisory in nature, and the court does not sit in appeal over an arbitral award and cannot re-appreciate evidence or substitute its own interpretation of the contract for that of the arbitrator.
M/S URC Construction (P) Ltd. v. Airports Authority of India [Decided on 01-09-2026]
In an execution petition filed before the Delhi High Court under Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act), seeking enforcement of an arbitral award dated 26-03-2019, corrected by an order dated 07-05-2019 under Section 33 of the Act, whereby the decree holder was awarded Rs. 2,59,07,248.60/- crores along with pendente lite and future interest at 10% per annum, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Om Prakash Shukla issued directions for the procedure to be followed when an insufficiently stamped domestic arbitral award is presented for enforcement.
Hanson Agro Limited vs Gail (India) Limited [Decided on September 01, 2026]
While declining to retrospectively invalidate unilaterally appointed Tribunals solely because Section 34 petitions were filed after the cut-off date, the Delhi High Court has ruled that 2015 Amendment to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is substantive and not merely clarificatory. Hence, it applies prospectively from Oct 23, 2015, and cannot be retrospectively imported into arbitrations that commenced before that date merely because the Award or the Section 34 challenge was filed later.
Eco Green Buildtech vs Vikartan Infrastructure [Decided on September 10, 2026]
The Delhi High Court strikes down an arbitral award where claims for idling of resources, additional overheads, material at site and loss of profit were allowed without evidence, and reliance was placed on conciliation proceedings to decide the arbitration. The Court said that where a tribunal records concessions or admissions during conciliation and later uses them to decide the arbitration, the award is patently illegal. Reference was made to the Apex Court’s decision in Moti Ram v. Ashok Kumar, (2011) 1 SCC 466, wherein it was emphasised that the element of confidentiality is essential to mediation and conciliation, and statements made therein cannot be used against the maker if settlement fails.
SBI vs KR Anand [Decided on September 15, 2026]
The Delhi High Court has ruled that an arbitral award quantifying overhead damages by applying the Emden formula, without the contractor discharging the onus of proving actual loss suffered, is non-speaking and suffers from patent illegality under Section 31(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Court said that for damages under Section 73 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, the twin conditions of breach of contractual conditions and proof of actual loss (or proof that actual loss is impossible to establish) must be satisfied.
Unison Hotels vs Iffco Tokio General Insurance [Decided on September 16, 2026]
In a significant ruling on the scope of Section 34 and Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the Delhi High Court has restored the unanimous arbitral award, holding that the Single Judge erred in setting it aside on a mere ‘possibility of forgetting’ arguments, without identifying any specific finding vitiated by delay. The Court said that a mere delay in rendition of an arbitral award is insufficient to invoke Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Sarr Freights Corporation vs Argo Coral Maritime [Decided on September 18, 2026]
While granting anti-arbitration injunction restraining LMAA proceedings, the Delhi High Court has held that under codified Indian evidence law, prior correspondence cannot be used to rewrite clear and unambiguous terms of a signed contract. The Court clarified that a signed Booking Note containing an express clause that it ‘shall prevail over any previous arrangements’ supersedes the earlier Fixture Recap, and prior correspondence or emails cannot be looked into to rewrite its terms.
Madras High Court
Eros Technologies Digital FZE vs Ayngaran International Media Private Limited [Decided on September 01, 2026]
Observing that the arbitration clause in the 2018 Deed of Assignment binds the plaintiff as an assignee in succession, the Madras High Court has held that the civil remedy under Section 55 of the Copyright Act can be pursued through arbitration as an agreed alternative dispute resolution mechanism. The Court referred the parties to arbitration under Section 45 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, holding that the arbitration clause in the Deed of Assignment binds the plaintiff as a subsequent assignee in the chain of title from the original assignor.