SUPREME COURT
Supreme Court Refuses Arbitration Where Arbitration Clause Itself Is Alleged to Be Forged
Rajia Begum v. Barnali Mukherjee & Ors. [Decision dated February 02, 2026]
The Supreme Court has held that disputes cannot be referred to arbitration where the very existence of the arbitration agreement is seriously disputed on allegations of forgery and fabrication, ruling that such controversies fall outside the realm of arbitrability. The Court set aside a Calcutta High Court order that had referred a civil suit to arbitration under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, despite concurrent findings casting doubt on the genuineness of the alleged arbitration agreement.
A Division Bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe delivered the verdict while deciding cross appeals arising from a long-running partnership dispute between the parties. The dispute stemmed from an alleged “Admission Deed” dated April 17, 2007, through which the appellant claimed induction into a partnership firm and relied upon an arbitration clause embedded in that document. The execution of the deed, however, was consistently denied by the other partners, who alleged that the document was forged and fabricated.
Read more- https://thebarbulletin.com/supreme-court-forged-arbitration-clause-refusal/
Section 11 Judicial Determination Binding in Subsequent Proceedings Under Pre-2015 Arbitration Law: Supreme Court Reiterates SBP & Co. Ruling
M/s Eminent Colonizers Private Limited vs. Rajasthan Housing Board and Ors. [Decided on February 4, 2026]
The Supreme Court in an appeal arising out of an SLP against the decision of the Rajasthan HC, held that in arbitral proceedings governed by the pre-2015 amendment regime, a determination made at the Section 11 stage of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“The Act”), regarding the existence and validity of an arbitration clause attains finality and operates as res judicata, thereby precluding the same issue from being re-agitated before the arbitral tribunal or in subsequent challenges.
The Division Bench of Justice K.V. Vishwanathan and Justice J.B. Pardiwala observed that the controversy in the appeals centred on the interpretation of Clause 23 of the contract agreement and whether a dispute concerning the existence and validity of the arbitration clause could have been raised before the arbitrator. The Court noted that the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 did not apply to the arbitral proceedings in question, and therefore, the legal position governing the matter ought to be determined under the pre-amendment framework.
Read more- https://thebarbulletin.com/section-11-determination-binding-pre-2015-arbitration-law/
Section 15 Powers Limited to Substitution of Arbitrator; Supreme Court Restores Validity of Proceedings During IBC Moratorium
Ankhim Holdings Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Zaveri Construction Pvt. Ltd. [Order dated February 04, 2026]
The Supreme Court has set aside a Bombay High Court decision that declared certain arbitration hearings a nullity on the ground that they were conducted during a moratorium under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC).
The Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K.V. Viswanathan has held that “the proper and legal course for the High Court acting under Section 15(2) of the Act, 1996, should have been to appoint a substitute arbitrator to continue from the existing stage of the proceedings.”
Read more- https://thebarbulletin.com/sc-restores-arbitration-validity-ibc-moratorium/
Section 29A Does Not Mandate Automatic Substitution of Arbitrator: Supreme Court Quashes MP High Court Order
Viva Highways Ltd v. MP Road Development Corporation Ltd, [Decided on 06.02.2026]
The Supreme Court has set aside an interim order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court which had prematurely terminated the mandate of an arbitrator and directed the parties to propose a fresh name for appointment, holding that the High Court misinterpreted the law governing Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Read more- https://thebarbulletin.com/sc-quashes-mp-hc-arbitrator-substitution/
Full Deposit of Arbitral Award Not Mandatory for Section 34 Challenge: Supreme Court
Mumbai Metro Rail Corporation Limited v. L&T-STEC JV Mumbai [Decided on 1 December 2025]
The Supreme Court, in a leave to appeal arising from proceedings under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, held that there is no legal necessity to direct deposit of the entire decretal amount as a condition precedent for adjudicating a challenge to an arbitral award. Modifying the Bombay High Court’s interim order, the Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi ruled that requiring such a full deposit or bank guarantee was unwarranted in the facts of the case.
Read more- https://thebarbulletin.com/supreme-court-section-34-arbitral-award-full-deposit-not-mandatory/
Supreme Court Stays Arbitration Proceedings in DDA–Jhankar Banquets Dispute; Issues Notice in SLP
Delhi Development Authority v. Shankar Banquets, [Decided on 16.02.2026]
The Supreme Court of India on February 16, 2026, stayed the ongoing arbitration proceedings between the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) and Jhankar Banquets, while issuing notice in special leave petitions filed by the DDA challenging a Delhi High Court order.
A Bench comprising Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Atul S. Chandurkar was hearing an SLP and a connected matter arising from the Delhi High Court’s final judgment dated November 26, 2025. At the outset, the Court allowed the applications seeking exemption from filing certified copies of the impugned judgment.
Read more- https://thebarbulletin.com/supreme-court-stays-arbitration-dda-jhankar-banquets-slp/
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Bombay HC Sets Aside Award Granting Brokerage Refund on Authorised Trades; Terms It Patently Illegal
Nirmal Bang Securities vs Shashi Mehra HUF [Decided on February 03, 2026]
The Bombay High Court has held that an investor cannot hold a stockbroker liable for trading losses, or for the brokerage generated on such trades, if the trades were authorised by the investor, even if executed by a trusted third party. The Court affirmed that regulatory violations or procedural lapses by a stockbroker may attract disciplinary action from regulatory bodies like SEBI or the NSE, but they do not automatically create a right for the investor to be compensated for losses arising from trades they have consented to or confirmed.
Furthermore, the Court clarified that an Arbitral Tribunal is mandated by Section 28(3) of the Arbitration Act to decide disputes strictly based on the terms of the contract and the applicable law. It cannot decide a matter ex aequo et bono (on principles of equity and fairness) unless expressly authorised by the parties to do so under Section 28(2) of the Act.
Read more- https://thebarbulletin.com/bombay-hc-sets-aside-brokerage-refund-award/
Competent Authority Becomes Functus Officio After Award; Modified Compensation Invalid: Bombay HC
Keshav v. State of Maharashtra, [Decided on 09.02.2026]
The Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) dismissed a writ petition seeking enforcement of a modified compensation award under the National Highways Act, holding that the Competent Authority becomes functus officio after passing the original award and lacks jurisdiction to alter it.
Read more- https://thebarbulletin.com/bombay-hc-competent-authority-functus-officio-award/
DELHI HIGH COURT
Sec 34 Arbitration Act Does Not Permit Re-Appreciation Of Evidence; Delhi HC Quashes Defective Award Against Gorkha Security Services
Gorkha Security Services vs Directorate of Health Services [Decided on January 30, 2026]
The Delhi High Court has held that an arbitral award that is unreasoned or contains unintelligible reasoning is in conflict with the public policy of India because it contravenes the statutory mandate for a reasoned award under Section 31(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and offends the basic notions of justice. Accordingly, the Court quashed the award under Section 34(2)(b)(ii) of the 1996 Act.
The Court has the inherent authority to set aside an award partially, provided the invalid portion is not legally and practically inseparable from the valid portions. However, in instances where a defect in the award, such as a lack of intelligible reasoning, is curable, the Court may exercise its discretion under Section 34(4) of the Act to remand the matter to the Arbitral Tribunal for the limited purpose of reconsidering the severed issue.
Read more- https://thebarbulletin.com/delhi-hc-quashes-unreasoned-arbitral-award/
Reliance Looses Battle Over Production Sharing Contracts; Delhi HC Says Refusal To Enforce Foreign Award Under Sec 48 Is Appealable Under Sec 50(1)
Union of India vs Reliance Industries [Decided on February 02, 2026]
The Delhi High Court has clarified that an appeal under Section 50(1)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is maintainable against any order that refuses to enforce a foreign award under Section 48 of the 1996 Act. The Court determined that the Single Judge’s order, despite being termed a dismissal for being ‘premature’ and ‘inexecutable’, was substantively a refusal to enforce the award under Section 48. This conclusion was based on the Single Judge’s explicit invocation of Section 48(2)(b) to justify the refusal, stating that enforcement would not be in compliance with the ‘fundamental policy of Indian law’.
Read more- https://thebarbulletin.com/delhi-hc-refusal-enforce-foreign-award-appealable-section-50/
Reference to Arbitration under National Highways Act Cannot Be Bypassed; Delhi High Court Directs CALA to Make Statutory Reference
Kaaya Buildtech Private Ltd. v. Union of India (Decided on February 13, 2026)
The Delhi High Court has disposed of a writ petition concerning non-reference of a land acquisition dispute to arbitration under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956, observing that the statutory mechanism prescribed under the special enactment cannot be bypassed by invoking Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Read more- https://thebarbulletin.com/delhi-high-court-national-highways-act-arbitration-reference/
Procedural Orders Rejecting Amendment of Pleadings Not ‘Interim Awards’; Section 34 Challenge Not Maintainable: Delhi High Court
H.S. NAG vs. ASIAN HOTEL (NORTH) LTD [Decided on: 18.02.2026]
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a batch of petitions challenging orders of a sole arbitrator rejecting applications for amendment of statements of claim, holding that such orders are purely procedural in nature and do not qualify as “interim awards” amenable to challenge under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar rejected petitions arising out of common arbitral proceedings involving multiple claimants.
Read more- https://thebarbulletin.com/procedural-orders-not-interim-awards-delhi-hc/
Arbitrator Erred In Allowing Deduction On Account Of Shortfall In Guaranteed CENVAT Credit; Delhi HC Holds Arbitration Award Patently Illegal
Primetals Technologies India vs Steel Authority of India Limited [Decided on February 23, 2026]
The Delhi High Court has ruled that an Arbitral Tribunal, being a creature of the contract, is bound to act strictly within the terms of the contract under which it is constituted. The arbitrator has no power apart from what the parties have conferred upon him under the contract, and if an arbitrator travels beyond the contract’s parameters, the award is considered an act without jurisdiction.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Avneesh Jhingan observed that while Article 2.1 of the contract provides for an MGCC to be passed on, it does not specify the consequences of a shortfall. The contract, specifically under Clause 14.5.2 of the General Conditions of the Contract (GCC), only stipulates that if the contractor fails to submit the necessary documents for the employer to avail CENVAT credit, the amount of Excise Duty on such equipment shall not be paid (i.e., not reimbursed) to the contractor. The Bench noted that there is no clause in the contract that permits the deduction of an amount for a shortfall in MGCC from the contractor’s invoices.
Read more- https://thebarbulletin.com/delhi-high-court-arbitration-award-patent-illegality-cenvat-deduction/
Interim Relief Cannot Grant Final Monetary Relief; Delhi High Court Sets Aside Arbitrator’s Order Directing ₹3 Lakh Monthly Usage Charges
Khurana Educational Society v. Smt Shashi Bala, [Decided on 26.02.2026]
The Delhi High Court partly allowed an appeal under Section 37(2)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, filed by Khurana Educational Society (Regd.), challenging an interim order passed by a Sole Arbitrator under Section 17 of the Act.
Read more- https://thebarbulletin.com/delhi-hc-interim-relief-final-monetary-relief-arbitration/
MSMED Act Arbitration Overrides Private Arbitration Agreement Between Parties: Delhi High Court Declines to Interfere with Proceedings Before Facilitation Council
Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Limited vs. M/s ESS ESS Technofabs Private Limited [Decided on February 7, 2026]
The Delhi High Court, while hearing a petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, declined to interfere with the ongoing proceedings between the parties before the MSME Facilitation Council at S.A.S. Nagar (Mohali). Justice Jasmeet Singh held that the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development (MSMED) Act, being a special statute governing disputes of a specific nature through a designated forum and procedure, overrides the general framework of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Court emphasised that a party legitimately invoking the statutory remedy under the MSMED Act would prevail over any private arbitration agreement between the parties.
Read more- https://thebarbulletin.com/msmed-act-overrides-private-arbitration-delhi-hc/
MADHYA PRADESH
MP High Court Appoints Justice A.M. Naik (Retd.) as Sole Arbitrator in KFC Lease Dispute; Tribunal to Decide Arbitrability
Arjun Manghani v. Sapphire Foods India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. [Decision dated February 09, 2026]
The Madhya Pradesh High Court, Indore, has appointed Justice A.M. Naik (Retd.) as a sole arbitrator to adjudicate disputes arising out of a 20-year commercial lease between a property owner and Sapphire Foods India Pvt. Ltd., which operates a KFC outlet in Indore.
Read more- https://thebarbulletin.com/mp-high-court-appoints-justice-am-naik-kfc-lease-arbitration/
MSMED Act Overrides Arbitration Agreement: Madhya Pradesh High Court Refuses to Appoint Arbitrator Under Section 11
Bee AAR Controls and Engineering Pvt Ltd v. Rons Technologies LLP, [Decided on 30.01.2026]
The Madhya Pradesh High Court at Gwalior has dismissed an application seeking appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, holding that once proceedings have been initiated before the Facilitation Council under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (MSMED Act), the statutory mechanism under the special law prevails over any private arbitration agreement.
Justice G.S. Ahluwalia was hearing an arbitration case arising out of disputes between two contracting parties concerning alleged supply of defective and non-functional machinery under a purchase agreement dated September 6, 2024
Read more- https://thebarbulletin.com/msmed-act-overrides-arbitration-mp-hc/
KERALA HIGH COURT
Findings of Earlier Annulled Award Cannot Bind Fresh Reference; Kerala HC Sets Aside Arbitral Award
Jimmy Elias v. Elizabeth Jasmine & Ors., Arb. A. No. 24 of 2025, [Decided on February 3, 2026]
The Kerala High Court has set aside an arbitral award after finding that the arbitrator committed a jurisdictional error by deciding a fresh reference based on the arbitral award that had already been set aside. The Court held that once an award is annulled, the dispute must be decided afresh, and no earlier findings can be treated as binding.
The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. held that the arbitrator had fundamentally erred in treating findings from the set-aside award as final and binding, and in applying the principle of res judicata without re-examining the pleadings and evidence. The Court observed that once an award is set aside, the dispute requires de novo consideration, and no finding from the earlier proceedings can survive.
Read more- https://thebarbulletin.com/kerala-high-court-annulled-award-fresh-reference/