Delhi High Court rules that a second application under Section 9 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, seeking reliefs previously declined in an earlier petition involving the same parties, is not maintainable. Case Name: DC Multi Modal Park Pvt. Ltd. v. Maharashtra MMLP Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Coram: Justice Tushar Rao Gedela Citation: (2026) ibclaw.in 5009 HC | O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 145/2026 | Decided on 01.09.2026 The Delhi High Court has held that a second petition under Section

Supreme Court clarifies that only an arbitral tribunal can resolve if a termination dispute falls under 'excepted matters,' maintaining its authority under section 16 and limiting writ court's jurisdiction. Case Name: GVV Constructions Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors. Coram: Justices P.S. Narasimha and Alok Aradhe Citation: (2026) ibclaw.in 631 SC | Civil Appeal No. 12525 of 2026 | Decided on 08.09.2026 The Supreme Court has held that a writ appellate court cannot, while

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

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

Supreme Court Deliberates on Forged Arbitration Agreements in Rajia Begum v. Barnali Mukherjee Case. INTRODUCTION In March 2026, the Supreme Court of India drew a line that every arbitration practitioner must understand. In Rajia Begum v. Barnali Mukherjee & Ors. (2026 INSC 106), The Court ruled that when a party alleges the arbitration agreement itself is forged, not merely that a fraud occurred within the underlying contract that no arbitrator can be appointed and no refer

The Supreme Court clarifies the precise commencement of arbitration proceedings, providing much-needed guidance. INTRODUCTION There is a deceptively simple question at the heart of many arbitration disputes in India: when, exactly, does the arbitration begin? It sounds straightforward. But for banks, NBFCs, and corporate litigants holding a pre-arbitration court order under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, getting this date wrong can cost them everythi

Supreme Court Decision on Forgery and Fraud: Clarifying Court Involvement Before Arbitration Proceedings. INTRODUCTION The Supreme Court of India, in Rajia Begum v. Barnali Mukherjee & Ors. (2026 INSC 106), has delivered a significant and clarificatory judgment on the interplay between allegations of forgery, fraud, and the doctrine of arbitrability under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Court was confronted with a situation where the same High Court, on ident

Supreme Court Clarifies: Only Civil Courts Can Extend Arbitral Tribunal Mandates Under Section 29A. Only the Civil Court of Original Jurisdiction Can Extend the Mandate of an Arbitral Tribunal under Section 29A: Supreme Court Settles the Law Questions of Law Referred to the Division Bench The Supreme Court in Jagdeep Chowgule v. Sheela Chowgule & Ors. (2026 INSC 92) was called upon to resolve a significant jurisdictional controversy that had resulted in inconsistent approach