Regulatory / Legal Trends

Supreme Court Rules Non-Signatories Are Bound by Arbitration Clauses in Identical Share Purchase Agreements. KKH Finvest Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. Ashiesh Shukla and Ors. | Civil Appeal No. 10056 of 2026 | Supreme Court of India | Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva | Decided on August 5, 2026 Background The Supreme Court examined whether a non-signatory to a Memorandum of Settlement (MoS) could be treated as a veritable party to the arbitration agreement contained

Delhi High Court Clarifies Debarment Orders as Administrative Actions: Section 9 Petitions Deemed Unmaintainable, Highlights adrEdge. NCC Ltd. v. Airport Authority of India | O.M.P. (I) (COMM) 140/2026 | Delhi High Court | Mr. Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar | Decided on July 1, 2026 Background The Delhi High Court has held that a challenge to a debarment order issued by the Airport Authority of India (AAI) against a contractor is not arbitrable, since such an order stems

Delhi High Court affirms that designating a venue with institutional arbitration rules establishes the seat, dismissing objections based on generic jurisdiction clauses. Case Title: Government of India v. Qingdao Construction Engineering Group Company Ltd. Coram: Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar The Delhi High Court has held that it has territorial jurisdiction to entertain a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, rejecting an application

Calcutta High Court Upholds Arbitral Award, Confirms Appellant's Breach in Supply Contract Dispute. Case Title: Neo Metaliks Ltd. v. Orrisa Metaliks Pvt. Ltd. Coram: Justice Debangsu Basak and Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi The Calcutta High Court has dismissed an appeal filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, against a judgment of the Single Judge refusing to interfere with an arbitral award under Section 34 of the Act. The Division Bench of Justic

Bombay High Court Clarifies Legal Intervention: Understanding Section 9 in Norvic Shipping Asia PTE Ltd. v. Zigma International. The Bombay High Court in Norvic Shipping Asia PTE Ltd. v. Zigma International, Commercial Arbitration Petition (L) No. 15734 of 2026, decided on 2 July 2026, has delivered an important judgment explaining the scope of interim protection under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996. The decision discusses the circumstances in which a

Calcutta High Court Rules on Amendment of Written Statements in Commercial Suits: Permitted Anytime Before Trial Under Order VI Rule 17 CPC. Case Title: Dredging and Desiltation Company Pvt. Ltd. v. Mackintosh Burn and Northern Express Consortium and Ors. The Calcutta High Court has held that amendment of a written statement in a commercial suit continues to be governed by the unamended provisions of Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and may be allowed at

Calcutta High Court clarifies that compliance with Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act cannot be replaced by independent mediation in prior non-commercial suits. Case Title: Ramji Lal Agarwal v. Sourav Agarwal The Calcutta High Court has held that once a suit is registered as a commercial suit, the mandatory requirement of pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 must be complied with, and that mediation conducted earlier in a separa

Calcutta High Court emphasizes that mediation cannot be mandated in mutual consent divorce cases, asserting the importance of voluntary participation. Citation: Danish Karim v. Ranjana Chowdhury, F.A.T. 22 of 2026, IA No. CAN 1 of 2026, decided on 20 July 2026, Calcutta High Court. In a significant ruling delivered on 20 July 2026 in Danish Karim v. Ranjana Chowdhury (F.A.T. 22 of 2026), the Calcutta High Court reaffirmed an important principle governing matrimonial disputes

Supreme Court Rules on Article 227: Revising Arbitral Tribunal Orders Requires Clear Lack of Jurisdiction, Featuring adrEdge's Legal Insight Platform. Case Title: Manash Kamal Bezboruah v. Bokahola Tea Company Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. The Supreme Court has held that a High Court, while exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution against an Arbitral Tribunal's order rejecting an application under Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

Supreme Court Enforces 120-Day Timeline for Plaintiff's Written Response to Counter-Claims in Commercial Disputes. Case Title: A.K. Ghosh & Company and Ors. v. Biman Bose and Ors. The Supreme Court has held that the mandatory 120-day timeframe prescribed under the proviso to Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as applicable to commercial suits under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, also governs the filing of a written statement by a plaintiff to a defenda

Delhi High Court Upholds Legal Standards, Declares Unilateral Arbitrator Appointments Non-compliant with Arbitration Act Section 12(5). The Delhi High Court, in Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. RKMT Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., O.M.P. (COMM) 445/2024, decided on 1 July 2026, once again underscored the importance of impartiality in arbitral proceedings by setting aside an arbitral award on the ground that the sole arbitrator had been appointed through a unilateral appointment mechanism. The ju

Legal verdict reached in the case of M/s Jai Balaji Industries Ltd. vs. Garuda Ispat Private Limited, as decided on 22 June 2026 by the Chhattisgarh High Court. The decision of the High Court of Chhattisgarh in Jai Balaji Industries Ltd. v. Garuda Ispat Private Limited is an important contribution to the jurisprudence governing disputes under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006. The judgment highlights that while the Act provides a speedy mechanism

Delhi High Court Rules Section 21 Notice Not Mandatory for Arbitration Proceedings, Allowing Greater Flexibility in Legal Disputes. Sunil Walia v. Delhi International Arbitration Centre and Anr. | W.P.(C) 6019/2026 | Delhi High Court | Decided: May 4, 2026 | Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav The Delhi High Court, in a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, dismissed a challenge to an interlocutory order passed by a sole arbitrator under the aegis of th

Madras High Court Upholds Limited Judicial Intervention in Arbitration: Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply vs. SPML Infra Ltd. Citation: O.S.A. No. 135 of 2020 Court: High Court of Judicature at Madras Date of Judgment: 9 June 2026 The Madras High Court, in Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. SPML Infra Limited, delivered an important judgment reiterating the narrow scope of judicial interference with arbitral awards under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitrat

"Legal Matters in Focus: Bombay High Court Addresses Fraud, Delay, and Due Process in Securities Arbitration" The Bombay High Court's decision in ABB India Limited v. Sunil Hariram Jaisingh & Ors., delivered on 9 June 2026 by Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan, is a significant contribution to the evolving jurisprudence surrounding securities market disputes, online dispute resolution mechanisms and the limits of arbitrability where allegations of fraud are involved. The judgment

Supreme Court Interprets the Arbitration and Conciliation Act: Insights on Sections 33 and 34 Regarding Limitation Periods. The Supreme Court of India, in its significant judgment delivered on 2 June 2026 in National Highways Authority of India v. T. Younis & Anr., 2026 INSC 616, has settled an important question concerning the computation of limitation under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The decision addresses the interplay between Sections 33 and 34 of the Act

Courtroom Insight: Himachal Pradesh High Court Clarifies Section 29A Extension Rules Regarding Arbitrator Delays. Ramesh Chand v. National Highways Authority of India and Anr. | Himachal Pradesh High Court | Decided on May 19, 2026 The Himachal Pradesh High Court has allowed applications filed under Section 29A(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for extension of time to conclude arbitration proceedings, holding that an application for such extension is maintaina

A gavel poised above legal documents, symbolizing the case of Eureka Forbes Ltd. vs. Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation, highlighting the reaffirmation of fairness in arbitral proceedings. Citation: Eureka Forbes Ltd. v. Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation, O.M.P. (COMM) 502/2024, Delhi High Court Date of Decision: 12 May 2026 Arbitration has long been regarded as an efficient and party-centric mechanism for dispute resolution. However, the flexibili

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