top of page
_edited.png)
Supreme court: High court cannot remit section 37 appeal to arbitral tribunal to be treated as section 17 application, even by consent
Supreme Court Clarifies Limitations: High Court Cannot Remit Section 37 Appeals to Arbitral Tribunals as Section 17 Applications, Even with Consent. Case Title: Union of India and Ors. v. Hariom Projects Pvt. Ltd. Coram: Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Prasanna Bhalachandra Varale Citation: (2026) ibclaw.in 649 SC (Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 33087 of 2026, decided on 18 September 2026) The Supreme Court has held that a High Court, while exercising statutory appella
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
Section 9 arbitration petition maintainable despite prior appointment of arbitrator where tribunal becomes non-functional: Bombay high court
Bombay High Court Rules: Section 9 Arbitration Petitions Maintainable Even if Tribunal Becomes Non-Functional Before Arbitrator Appointment. Case Title: Seetaram Shiva Shetty v. Sudhir Vasu Shetty and Ors. Case Number: Comm. Arbitration Petition (L) No. 24746 of 2026 Citation: (2026) ibclaw.in 4738 HC Coram: Justice Amit Borkar The Bombay High Court has held that a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 remains maintainable even after an Arbi
Bombay high court condones 527 days delay in section 11 arbitration application
Bombay High Court pardons a 527-day delay in filing a Section 11 arbitration application, demonstrating flexibility in legal proceedings. The Bombay High Court in Atul Projects India Pvt. Ltd. v. Taksha Spaces Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., decided on 1 September 2026, considered whether a delay of 527 days in filing an application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 could be condoned. The Court held that the Applicant had shown sufficient cause and that the
Delay of twenty seven days in filing section 34 petition condoned where judgment debtor diligently pursued section 33 application and related proceedings: Delhi high court
Delhi High Court Condones 27-Day Delay in Filing Section 34 Petition Due to Diligent Pursuit of Section 33 Applications by Judgment Debtor. Case Title: Inox Wind Ltd. and Anr. v. Jasdan Energy Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Citation: (2026) ibclaw.in 5008 HC Coram: Justice Avneesh Jhingan The Delhi High Court has condoned a delay of twenty seven days in filing a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, holding that the delay stood explained by the judgment
Unilateral appointment of arbitrator cannot be waived by mere participation in proceedings, award rendered a nullity: Delhi high court
Delhi High Court Rules Unilateral Arbitrator Appointments Require Consent: Participation Alone Insufficient for Validity, Resulting in Nullity. Case Title: Union of India v. Goodrich Foodtech Ltd. Citation: (2026) ibclaw.in 4655 HC Coram: Justice Subramonium Prasad The Delhi High Court has set aside an arbitral award on the ground that the Sole Arbitrator was unilaterally appointed by the Union of India in violation of Section 12(5) read with the Seventh Schedule of the Arbit
Supreme court clarifies when an arbitration clause in a loan agreement binds a personal guarantor
Supreme Court Provides Clarity on Arbitration Clauses in Loan Agreements Affecting Personal Guarantors. The Supreme Court of India, in National Skill Development Corporation v. Surya Wires Private Limited & Ors., decided on 8 September 2026, examined whether an arbitration clause contained in a Loan Agreement could bind a person who had executed a Personal Guarantee in his individual capacity, where the Guarantee was expressly incorporated into the Loan Agreement. The Court
Party in default of assured return clause cannot invoke section 55 of contract act to resist termination for delayed possession: Delhi high court
Delhi High Court's Ruling: Defaulting Parties Cannot Use Section 55 to Delay Contract Termination. Case Name: Omaxe Ltd. v. Joginder Singh Nijjar and Anr. Citation: (2026) ibclaw.in 4669 HC Coram: Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora The Delhi High Court has dismissed an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, upholding an Arbitral Award that directed refund of the sale consideration paid for a commercial unit along w
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
Unilateral appointment of sole arbitrator void ab initio, award rendered a nullity: Delhi high court
Delhi High Court declares unilateral appointment of a sole arbitrator as void from the beginning, nullifying the award. Case Details Case Title: Airports Authority of India v. Ahluwalia Contracts India Ltd. Coram: Justice Avneesh Jhingan The Delhi High Court has set aside an arbitral award on the ground that the appointment of the sole arbitrator was unilateral and in violation of the amended Section 12(5) read with the Seventh Schedule of the Arbitration and Conciliation Ac
When courts step in before the award: Bombay high court explains the scope of section 9 in Norvic Shipping Asia PTE ltd. v. Zigma International
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
Substitution of Arbitrator Is Not Automatic on Expiry of Mandate under Section 29A: Supreme Court Clarifies Scope of Judicial Powers
Supreme Court Clarifies: Arbitrator Substitution Not Automatic Post-Mandate Expiry under Section 29A, Outlining Judicial Powers. Introduction Time-bound arbitration was introduced in India with the objective of curbing delays and improving the efficiency of arbitral proceedings. Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, inserted by the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015, mandates the completion of arbitral proceedings within a prescribed perio
bottom of page