Case Studies

Delhi High Court rules that civil suits are not impeded by foreign arbitral awards lacking enforceability in India, ensuring causes of action remain separate from unenforceable foreign awards. Campos Brothers Farms v. Matru Bhumi Supply Chain Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. | RFA(OS)(COMM) 3/2025 | Delhi High Court | Decided on May 5, 2026 A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court has set aside an order rejecting a civil plaint at the threshold, holding that the cause of action pleaded in

Delhi High Court Reaffirms Judicial Restraint, Upholds Arbitral Tribunal’s Decision Under Section 34 on Specific Performance. Case: Imran Ahmed Ansari & Anr. v. Intex Technologies (India) Ltd. & Anr. Court: Delhi High Court Citation: (2026) ibclaw.in 3020 HC Date of Decision: 08 May 2026 The Delhi High Court in Imran Ahmed Ansari & Anr. v. Intex Technologies (India) Ltd. & Anr. reaffirmed the narrow scope of judicial interference with arbitral awards under Section 34 of the A

Karnataka High Court Ruling Highlights Section 34 Limitations in Land Acquisition Compensation Awards. Case: P. Nagaraju v. Special Land Acquisition Officer and Competent Authority and Ors. Bench: Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C.M. Poonacha, High Court of Karnataka Background The appellant, P. Nagaraju, owned lands measuring 631 sq. mtrs. in Survey No. 42/1 and 50 sq. mtrs. in Survey No. 92/2 of Mayaganahalli Village, Bidadi Hobli, Ramanagara Taluk and District. The

Madras High Court Rules Writ Petitions Against MSMED Act Proceedings Unmaintainable, Impacting India Glycols Case Case: Kinetic Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Micro Small Enterprises Facilitation Council and Anr. Bench: Justice Abdul Quddhose, High Court of Madras Background Kinetic Industries Pvt. Ltd. filed a writ petition before the Madras High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an order dated July 15, 2025 passed by the Micro and Small Ent

Legal proceedings in progress at a desk with a gavel and scales, representing the High Court of Madhya Pradesh's decision on the Ssangyong Engineering and Construction Company Ltd. vs. S.B. Engineering Associates, Arbitration Appeals. The decision delivered by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Ssangyong Engineering and Construction Company Ltd. v. S.B. Engineering Associates marks a significant development in Indian arbitration jurisprudence concerning the appointment of ar

Case: Project Director, National Highways Authority of India v. Alfa Remidis Ltd. and Ors. Citation:2026 INSC 480 Supreme Court Clarifies Compensation Methodology Under Section 26 of the 2013 LA Act: One Sale Deed is Insufficient. Background Alfa Remidis Ltd. owned 1,394 square meters of land in Survey No. 66 of Mouza Pardi (Rithi), Tahsil Saoner, Nagpur District. The land was acquired for the four-laning of National Highway No. 547-E pursuant to a notification dated May 9, 2

A legal professional in a dark suit holding a wooden gavel over an open book next to a golden scale of justice on a desk, featuring a text overlay about the Supreme Court ruling on collaborators and arbitration clauses. Elecon Engineering Company Ltd. v. Bhartiya Rail Bijlee Company Ltd. and Anr. | Civil Appeal No. 7116/2026 | Supreme Court of India | May 7, 2026 The Supreme Court has held that a Collaborator who executes a Deed of Joint Undertaking as an inextricable part of

The intersection of law and technology: Navigating modern commercial disputes The decision delivered by the Delhi High Court in Prem Lata Surekha v. Chakradhari Surekha is a significant ruling on partnership disputes, arbitral jurisdiction, evidentiary standards and the limited scope of judicial interference under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The judgment highlights how courts approach disputes arising from family partnerships where allega

Delhi High Court rules arbitral award granting ADC claims illegal due to breach of coverage conditions, emphasizing legal compliance in arbitration. Corporate Service Plan India Pvt. Ltd. v. Sony India Pvt. Ltd. | O.M.P. (COMM) 410/2023 | Delhi High Court | April 29, 2026 The Delhi High Court has set aside an arbitral award that directed an Accidental Damage Cover service provider to honour claims by Sony India Pvt. Ltd. even after finding that Sony had admitted non-complianc

Critical Analysis of Arbitration Clauses by Reference: Insights from Hirani Developers v. Nehru Nagar Samruddhi CHS Ltd. The Supreme Court in Hirani Developers v. Nehru Nagar Samruddhi CHS Ltd. & Ors. (2026 INSC 484) revisited an important aspect of arbitration law concerning the incorporation of arbitration clauses by reference under Section 7(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The judgment assumes significance in the context of redevelopment agreements and co

Bombay High Court Affirms Validity of Arbitration Clauses in Tax Invoices as Binding Agreements, Regardless of Silent Purchase Orders. Hitesh Coal Traders v. Indapur Dairy and Milk Products Ltd. | Commercial Arbitration Application No. 93 of 2026 | Bombay High Court | May 5, 2026 In a significant ruling on the existence of arbitration agreements in commercial transactions, the Bombay High Court has held that an arbitration clause printed on tax invoices and delivery challans,

Delhi High Court Rules Arbitrator Lacks Authority on Withdrawn Claims; AMR Labeling Ineffective for Jurisdiction Restoration. Parveen Kapoor and Ors. v. Omaxe Ltd. | FAO (OS) (COMM) 50/2024 | Delhi High Court | May 4, 2026 The Delhi High Court has held that once a claim is withdrawn from arbitral proceedings, the arbitrator loses all jurisdiction over that claim. A withdrawn claim cannot be reintroduced into the arbitration, directly or indirectly, and an award granting reli

Supreme Court Clarifies: Section 37 Appeal for Konkan Railway vs. Chenab Bridge Project is Not a Rehearing of Award, Outlining Judicial Limits. The appellate journey in Indian arbitration law proceeds through two levels of judicial scrutiny after an award is made. The first is a challenge under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, heard by the principal civil court of original jurisdiction or the commercial court. The second is an appeal under Section 37

Supreme Court Upholds Strict Limits on Section 34: Absolute Ban on Rewriting Awards Reaffirmed S.V. Samudram v. State of Karnataka, (2024) 3 SCC 623[1] In a significant reinforcement of arbitral autonomy, the Supreme Court in S.V. Samudram v. State of Karnataka has categorically held that courts exercising jurisdiction under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 cannot modify arbitral awards or re-appreciate evidence. Background The case arose from

Arbitration Insight: Understanding the Fee Fixation Principle and the limitation on arbitrators from unilaterally revising their remuneration. Background In Chennai Metro Rail Limited v. Transtonnel stroy Afcons JV, (2024) 6 SCC 211, the Supreme Court was called upon to examine two related questions: first, whether a tribunal could unilaterally revise its fee after it had been fixed by agreement with all parties; and second, whether such revision, when insisted upon by the t

AdrEdge explores the complexities of evidentiary procedures and exceptional circumstances in legal cases, highlighting the nuances of adducing evidence at the section 34 stage. Background In Alpine Housing Development Corporation Pvt. Ltd. v. Ashok S. Dhariwal, (2023) 19 SCC 629, the Supreme Court examined a question that arises with some regularity in contested Section 34 proceedings: can a party that did not participate in the arbitration, and against whom an ex-parte award

"Exploring the Shift to Independent Arbitrator Appointments After Glock Asia-Pacific: A Discussion on the End of Closed Panels" Background In Glock Asia-Pacific Ltd. v. Union of India, (2023) 8 SCC 226, the Supreme Court addressed a common feature of government contracts in India: the arbitration clause that vests one party, typically the State or a public authority, with the exclusive right to nominate the arbitrator. The Ministry of Home Affairs had contracted with Glock As

Supreme Court Reviews Section 29A Extensions: Addressing Expired Mandates with Judicial Insight. Background Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 prescribes a twelve-month period from the completion of pleadings for an arbitral tribunal to deliver its award in domestic arbitrations. Parties may by consent extend this by a further six months under Section 29A(3). Beyond eighteen months, only a court can grant further time, upon sufficient cause shown. The q

Understanding the Two-View Rule: Protecting Arbitration Awards from Judicial Rewrite. Background In Reliance Infrastructure Ltd. v. State of Goa, (2024) 1 SCC 479, the Supreme Court was called upon to decide whether a High Court, exercising appellate jurisdiction under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, could reverse findings of an arbitral tribunal merely because it preferred a different reading of the contractual terms. The dispute arose from a Power

Supreme Court Ruling: Arbitration Clause Excludes MSME Suppliers in Case Between Gujarat State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. and Mahakali Foods Pvt. Ltd. Commercial contracts between large buyers and their smaller vendors routinely contain carefully drafted arbitration clauses. For years, buyers relied on these clauses to channel any payment dispute to a forum of their choosing, often to the exclusion of the statutory dispute resolution mechanism available under the Micro,