top of page
_edited.png)
Supreme court: Contractual bar on interest for delayed payments excludes pre-reference interest
Supreme Court Ruling: Contractual restrictions on interest for payment delays do not include pre-reference interest. Case Title: North Eastern Electric Power Corporation Ltd. (NEEPCO) v. Astra Construction Pvt. Ltd. Coram: Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe Citation: (2026) ibclaw.in 646 SC (Civil Appeal No. 13081 of 2026, decided on 22 September 2026) The Supreme Court has held that Clause 54 of the General Conditions of Contract (GCC) bars the grant of pre-refe
J&K and Ladakh high court refers family disputes over hotel properties to sole arbitrator on consent, sets aside receiver order
J&K and Ladakh High Court Entrusts Hotel Property Dispute to Sole Arbitrator, Overturns Receiver Decision. Case Title: Mohammad Rafeeq Karnai v. Bashir Ahmad Karnai and Ors. Case No.: Arb P No. 4/2025 c/w CM(M) No. 380/2025 with CM(M) No. 485/2025 Coram: Justice Sanjay Dhar Citation: (2026) ibclaw.in 5275 HC Date of Decision: 08 September 2026 The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has referred all disputes between five brothers and their mother, arising from a family s
Solatium and interest for land acquired under national highways act to be computed basis date of competent authority’s award: Supreme court
Supreme Court Ruling: Solatium and interest for land acquired under the National Highways Act to be calculated from the date of the competent authority's award. Case Name: Manav Bhanot v. National Highway Authority of India Coram: Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran Citation: (2026) ibclaw.in 628 SC | Civil Appeal No. 12587 of 2026 | Decided on 08.09.2026 The Supreme Court has held that solatium, interest, and interest on solatium payable for land acquired under the
Delhi high court reaffirms limited scope of section 34 review while upholding arbitral award in DLF Home Developers v. Klassik Lamitex
Delhi High Court affirms limited scope of Section 34 review, upholding arbitral award in DLF Home Developers v. Klassik Lamitex case. In DLF Home Developers Ltd. v. Klassik Lamitex Pvt. Ltd., O.M.P. (COMM) 379/2021, decided on 5 August 2026, the Delhi Hig Court considered the limited scope of judicial interference with an arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Court, presided over by Justice Subramonium Prasad, dismissed DLF Home D
Interpretation of limitation of liability clause in contract is within arbitrator's domain, section 34 court cannot substitute its own view: Bombay high court
"Legal Authority Confirmed: Bombay High Court affirms that interpreting limitation of liability clauses in contracts remains within the arbitrator's jurisdiction, emphasizing non-interference by courts under section 34." Case Name: Conso Feeds v. Alfa Laval (India) Pvt. Ltd. Citation: (2026) ibclaw.in 4335 HC Coram: Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh The Bombay High Court has dismissed a petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, holding that t
Delay attributable to employer disentitles imposition of liquidated damages: Delhi high court upholds arbitral award in favour of NH road contractor
Delhi High Court Supports NH Road Contractor: Employer-Caused Delays Prevent Liquidated Damages. Case Title: Public Works Department, NH Wing and Anr. v. GVR Infra Projects Ltd. Case Number: O.M.P. (COMM) 236/2026 | Delhi High Court | Justice Subramonium Prasad The Delhi High Court has dismissed a petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, upholding an arbitral award of over Rs. 48.57 crores passed in favour of a road construction contrac
Emden formula, being a construction contract tool, cannot be applied to assess damages in dealership agreements: Madras high court
Madras High Court Rules Emden Formula Not Applicable for Dealership Agreement Damages Assessment. Case Title: Hyundai Motor India Ltd. v. St. Antonys Cars Pvt. Ltd. Case Number: OSA No. 38 of 2021 | Madras High Court | Justice P. Velmurugan and Justice K. Govindarajan Thilakavadi The Madras High Court has set aside an arbitral award to the extent it awarded damages to a former automobile dealer by applying the Emden formula, holding that the formula, being confined to comput
Non-signatory bound by identical share purchase agreement clauses applicable to other signatories is a veritable party to arbitration agreement: Supreme court
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 upholds Rs. 662 crore arbitral award in favour of Toyo engineering-L&T consortium, dismisses IOCL's section 34 challenge
Delhi High Court affirms Rs. 662 crore arbitral award favoring Toyo Engineering-L&T consortium, dismissing IOCL's Section 34 challenge in a landmark decision. Case Title: Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Toyo Engineering Corporation and Anr. Coram: Justice Amit Bansal The Delhi High Court has dismissed a petition filed by Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 challenging an arbitral award dated 11th March, 2019, whereby a con
Calcutta high court upholds arbitral award, confirms appellant's breach of consent order in supply contract dispute
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
One Day Late, One Case Lost: The Supreme Court on the Hard Outer Limit for Challenging Arbitral Awards
Exploring the Supreme Court's Strict Deadline for Challenging Arbitral Awards: "One Day Late, One Case Lost" - A Critical Analysis by adrEdge. Time limits in arbitration law are not mere procedural formalities. The legislature has drawn them tightly, and the Supreme Court of India has consistently refused to permit litigants to stretch them through creative use of the general law of limitation. The decision in State of West Bengal v. Rajpath Contractors and Engineers Ltd., d
bottom of page