top of page
Regulatory / Legal Trends


Arbitrator's administrative engagements constitute sufficient cause for extension under section 29A: Himachal Pradesh high court
Himachal Pradesh High Court Rules Arbitrator's Administrative Duties Justify Extension under Section 29A. The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that the administrative preoccupations of an arbitrator who simultaneously holds a senior government office constitute sufficient cause for extending the time limit for passing an arbitral award under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Justice Virender Singh extended the mandate of the Divisional Commissione


Ssangyong engineering and construction company ltd. v. S.B. engineering associates, arbitration appeal nos. 14 of 2023 and 25 of 2023, decided on 22 April 2026 (High court of Madhya Pradesh).
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


One sale deed is not enough: Supreme court on the methodology for determining compensation under section 26 of the 2013 LA Act
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 promise to make a promise: Supreme court on letters of intent, concluded contracts, and incorporation of arbitration clauses
Supreme Court Examines Letters of Intent and Arbitration Clauses in New Ruling. Case: Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. (MSEDCL) and Ors. v. R Z Malpani Citation: Civil Appeal No. 4307 of 2026 (SLP (C) No. 36889 of 2025) | Decided on: April 9, 2026 Bench: Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice A.S. Chandurkar Background Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. (MSEDCL), a State Government-owned electricity distribution utility, floated a ten


Collaborator bound by joint undertaking is a veritable party to contract, can invoke arbitration clause: Supreme court
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


Section 29A inapplicable where arbitration invoked prior to 2015 amendment: Delhi high court in partnership property dispute
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


Arbitral award granting ADC claims despite admitted breach of coverage conditions set aside as patently illegal: Delhi high court
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


Unilateral appointment of arbitrators and the requirement of express waiver under Indian arbitration law
Exploring the complexities of unilateral arbitrator appointments and the necessity for express waivers in Indian arbitration law. The decision of the High Court of Delhi in PTC Techno Pvt. Ltd. v. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. is another significant development in Indian arbitration jurisprudence concerning the validity of unilateral appointment of arbitrators. The judgment reinforces the principles of neutrality, impartiality, and equal participation in the constitutio


Incorporation of arbitration clauses by reference: A critical analysis of Hirani Developers v. Nehru Nagar Samruddhi CHS ltd.
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


Arbitration clause in tax invoices forms valid agreement even if purchase orders are silent, rules Bombay High Court
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,


Arbitrator cannot award on withdrawn claims; Dressing AMR as compensation does not revive jurisdiction, holds Delhi high court
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


MSME rejection does not extinguish arbitration rights under contract, holds Delhi high court
Delhi High Court Rules MSME Rejection Doesn't Nullify Arbitration Rights Under Contract Newton Engineering and Chemicals Ltd. v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. | LPA 254/2026 | Delhi High Court | April 16, 2026 The Delhi High Court has held that a contractor who approaches the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Facilitation Council (MSMFC) and receives a rejection on maintainability does not thereby lose the right to invoke arbitration under the original contract. The Division


A section 37 appeal is not a rehearing of the award: Supreme court in Konkan railway corporation ltd. v. Chenab bridge project undertaking
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


The absolute bar on rewriting awards: Supreme court reaffirms strict limits on section 34 interference
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


The fee fixation principle: Arbitrators cannot unilaterally revise their remuneration
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


The death of the closed panel: Independence in arbitrator appointments after Glock Asia-Pacific
"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


Rescuing the Expired Mandate: Supreme Court on Section 29A Extensions
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


The two-view rule: why courts can not rewrite your arbitration award
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


Your arbitration clause does not apply to MSME suppliers: Supreme court in Gujarat state civil supplies corporation ltd. v. Mahakali foods pvt. ltd.
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,


Post-award interest runs on principal and pre-award interest together: Supreme court in UHL power company ltd. v. state of Himachal Pradesh
Supreme Court Decision: Post-Award Interest on Principal and Pre-Award Interest Affirmed in UHL Power Company Ltd. v. State of Himachal Pradesh One of the more persistent debates in Indian arbitration law has been whether an arbitral tribunal can lawfully award interest on interest, and whether post-award interest must attach only to the principal sum or to the entire amount directed to be paid. The Supreme Court of India put this debate to rest in UHL Power Company Ltd. v. S
bottom of page
_edited.png)