top of page
_edited.png)
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
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
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
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
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
bottom of page