top of page


Madras high court reaffirms limited judicial interference in arbitral awards: Chennai metropolitan water supply and sewerage board v. SPML infra limited
Madras High Court Upholds Limited Judicial Intervention in Arbitration: Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply vs. SPML Infra Ltd. Citation: O.S.A. No. 135 of 2020 Court: High Court of Judicature at Madras Date of Judgment: 9 June 2026 The Madras High Court, in Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. SPML Infra Limited, delivered an important judgment reiterating the narrow scope of judicial interference with arbitral awards under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitrat


Section 29A inapplicable where arbitration invoked prior to 2015 amendment: Delhi high court in partnership property dispute
The intersection of law and technology: Navigating modern commercial disputes The decision delivered by the Delhi High Court in Prem Lata Surekha v. Chakradhari Surekha is a significant ruling on partnership disputes, arbitral jurisdiction, evidentiary standards and the limited scope of judicial interference under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The judgment highlights how courts approach disputes arising from family partnerships where allega


The absolute bar on rewriting awards: Supreme court reaffirms strict limits on section 34 interference
Supreme Court Upholds Strict Limits on Section 34: Absolute Ban on Rewriting Awards Reaffirmed S.V. Samudram v. State of Karnataka, (2024) 3 SCC 623[1] In a significant reinforcement of arbitral autonomy, the Supreme Court in S.V. Samudram v. State of Karnataka has categorically held that courts exercising jurisdiction under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 cannot modify arbitral awards or re-appreciate evidence. Background The case arose from
bottom of page
_edited.png)