Delhi High Court

All Posts
Mediation
Tech in Dispute Resolution
Case Studies
Digital Conciliation
Regulatory / Legal Trends
Arbitration
Award

Graphic displaying Supreme Court decision on Goa as the juridical seat of arbitration in Arcis Clean Energy case alongside a judge gavel.

Supreme court holds Goa to be juridical seat where arbitration clause names Delhi and Goa and governing law clause vests exclusive jurisdiction in Goa courts

Supreme Court Designates Goa as Juridical Seat with Exclusive Jurisdiction, Despite Arbitration Clause Naming Delhi and Goa. Case Title: Arcis Clean Energy Pvt. Ltd. v. Parshva Innovation[1] Coram: Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Vijay Bishnoi Citation: (2026) ibclaw.in 660 SC | Civil Appeal No. 13663/2026 (SLP (C) No. 35915 of 2025) | Decided on 12.10.2026 The Supreme Court has set aside an order of the Delhi High Court appointing an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Ar

When proof matters: Delhi high court on damages and confidentiality in conciliation

Delhi High Court Deliberates on the Importance of Evidence in Conciliation Cases Involving Damages and Confidentiality. Eco Green Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. v. Vikartan Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. The Delhi High Court, in Eco Green Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. v. Vikartan Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., examined important issues concerning the award of damages in arbitration and the confidentiality of conciliation proceedings. The judgment highlights that while an arbitral tribunal may use its exper

Delhi High Court dismisses Section 34 challenge, holding limitation not raised before tribunal cannot be agitated for the first time

Delhi high court dismisses section 34 challenge, holds limitation not raised before tribunal cannot be agitated for the first time, rejects plea of incapacity

Delhi High Court dismisses Section 34 challenge, affirming that new limitations not raised before the tribunal cannot be introduced, rejecting the plea of incapacity. Case Title: Prime Meiden Ltd. v. Kirby Building System India Pvt. Ltd. Case No.: O.M.P. (COMM) 113/2021 Coram: Justice Jasmeet Singh Citation: (2026) ibclaw.in 5217 HC Date of Decision: 08 September 2026 The Delhi High Court has dismissed a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

Delhi High Court sets aside rejection of counter-claim on performance bank guarantee, holding proceeds cannot be retained without proving loss

Delhi high court sets aside rejection of counter-claim on performance bank guarantee, holds proceeds cannot be retained without proving loss

Delhi High Court overturns rejection of a counter-claim on performance bank guarantee, ruling that proceeds cannot be retained without proven loss. Case Title: Isgec Heavy Engineering Ltd. v. Prakash Industries Ltd. Case No.: O.M.P. (COMM) 503/2023 Coram: Justice Avneesh Jhingan Citation: (2026) ibclaw.in 5219 HC Date of Decision: 08 September 2026 The Delhi High Court has set aside the part of an arbitral award that allowed a purchaser to retain the proceeds of an encashed

Plaint cannot be rejected under order VII rule 11 CPC by relying on documents filed by defendant: Delhi high court

Delhi High Court Clarifies: Plaint Cannot Be Dismissed Based on Defendant's Documents Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC Case Title: Central Court Hotel v. Jasmeet Singh Marwah and Anr. Case Number: I.A. 6645/2023 in CS(OS) 147/2023 Citation: (2026) ibclaw.in 5155 HC Coram: Justice Subramonium Prasad The Delhi High Court has dismissed an application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking rejection of a plaint, holding that the scope of enquiry u

Scaled balance of justice resting on a book with a wooden gavel alongside text about setting aside an arbitrator's award

Supreme court: High court justified in setting aside co-operative arbitrator's award where relevant documents were ignored

Supreme Court Affirms High Court's Decision to Overturn Arbitration Award Due to Ignored Documents, Highlighting Judicial Oversight in Arbitration Processes. Case Title: Shri Prakash Narain Sharma (Dead) Through Legal Representative v. Burmah Shell Co-Operative Housing Society (Regd) and Ors. Citation: (2026) ibclaw.in 557 SC Coram: Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar The Supreme Court has dismissed a batch of civil appeals arising out of a dispute concerning

Deposit is not payment: Supreme court clarifies when interest on an arbitral award ceases to run

Supreme Court Ruling: Clarification on When Interest on Arbitral Awards Stops, Highlighting the Difference Between Deposits and Payments. National Seeds Corporation Ltd. v. National Agro Seed Corporation (India), 2026 INSC 1017 The Supreme Court in National Seeds Corporation Ltd. v. National Agro Seed Corporation (India) examined an important question concerning the liability of an award debtor to pay interest after depositing the awarded amount before a court. The Court clar

Gavel and block on wooden desk alongside text detailing Delhi High Court ruling on Section 34 petition delay condonation

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

Handshake graphic alongside text detailing the Delhi High Court ruling on unilateral appointment of an arbitrator.

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

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

Delhi high court refuses additional protection to lender where mortgage already secures the debt

Delhi High Court Decision: No Extra Protection for Lenders Beyond Mortgage Security, Confirms Court. In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal filed by Axis Finance Ltd against Rishab Mago and others, upholding an earlier decision of a Single Judge that had declined to grant interim relief to the lender under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The judgment was delivered on 1 September 2026 by a Division Bench comprising Justice Anil Ks

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

Delhi High Court ruling graphic on Section 34 evidence re-appreciation and liquidated damages deduction by adrEdge

Section 34 court cannot re-appreciate evidence on attribution of delay where arbitrator's view is plausible: Delhi high court upholds 10% liquidated damages deduction

Delhi High Court Affirms Arbitrator's Decision: Section 34 Court Cannot Re-evaluate Delay Evidence, Upholds 10% Liquidated Damages Deduction. Geo Miller & Co Pvt. Ltd. v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Citation: (2026) ibclaw.in 4472 HC Court: High Court of Delhi Case No.: O.M.P. (COMM) 494/2016 Decided on: 27-Jul-26 Coram: Mr. Justice Om Prakash Shukla The Delhi High Court has upheld an arbitral award which found a contractor responsible for delay in completing an EPC project a

Gavel and legal document next to text stating delay attributable to employer disentitles imposition of liquidated damages by Delhi High Court

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

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

Graphic banner by adrEdge discussing Delhi High Court ruling on arbitration seat vs venue and institutional rules, featuring a wooden gavel and professional handshake.

Delhi high court: Designation of venue along with institutional arbitration rules indicates seat, rejects objection based on generic jurisdiction clause

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

Supreme Court Decision Highlights Limits on Arbitrators: Section 28(3) Clarified in IRCTC v. Brandavan Food Products Case.

Arbitrator’s Contractual Overreach: Supreme Court Reaffirms Limits of Arbitral Discretion under Section 28(3) in IRCTC v. Brandavan Food Products

Supreme Court Decision Highlights Limits on Arbitrators: Section 28(3) Clarified in IRCTC v. Brandavan Food Products Case. Introduction In Indian Railways Catering & Tourism Corporation Ltd. v. M/s Brandavan Food Products & Ors. (2025 INSC 1294), the Supreme Court of India delivered a significant ruling reinforcing the sanctity of contractual terms and the boundaries of arbitral interpretation under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 . The decision, authored by Jus