top of page


One sale deed is not enough: Supreme court on the methodology for determining compensation under section 26 of the 2013 LA Act
Case: Project Director, National Highways Authority of India v. Alfa Remidis Ltd. and Ors. Citation:2026 INSC 480 Supreme Court Clarifies Compensation Methodology Under Section 26 of the 2013 LA Act: One Sale Deed is Insufficient. Background Alfa Remidis Ltd. owned 1,394 square meters of land in Survey No. 66 of Mouza Pardi (Rithi), Tahsil Saoner, Nagpur District. The land was acquired for the four-laning of National Highway No. 547-E pursuant to a notification dated May 9, 2


Incorporation of arbitration clauses by reference: A critical analysis of Hirani Developers v. Nehru Nagar Samruddhi CHS ltd.
Critical Analysis of Arbitration Clauses by Reference: Insights from Hirani Developers v. Nehru Nagar Samruddhi CHS Ltd. The Supreme Court in Hirani Developers v. Nehru Nagar Samruddhi CHS Ltd. & Ors. (2026 INSC 484) revisited an important aspect of arbitration law concerning the incorporation of arbitration clauses by reference under Section 7(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The judgment assumes significance in the context of redevelopment agreements and co


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


The fee fixation principle: Arbitrators cannot unilaterally revise their remuneration
Arbitration Insight: Understanding the Fee Fixation Principle and the limitation on arbitrators from unilaterally revising their remuneration. Background In Chennai Metro Rail Limited v. Transtonnel stroy Afcons JV, (2024) 6 SCC 211, the Supreme Court was called upon to examine two related questions: first, whether a tribunal could unilaterally revise its fee after it had been fixed by agreement with all parties; and second, whether such revision, when insisted upon by the t


The evidentiary lock-in and the "exceptional circumstance" : Adducing evidence at the section 34 stage
AdrEdge explores the complexities of evidentiary procedures and exceptional circumstances in legal cases, highlighting the nuances of adducing evidence at the section 34 stage. Background In Alpine Housing Development Corporation Pvt. Ltd. v. Ashok S. Dhariwal, (2023) 19 SCC 629, the Supreme Court examined a question that arises with some regularity in contested Section 34 proceedings: can a party that did not participate in the arbitration, and against whom an ex-parte award


The death of the closed panel: Independence in arbitrator appointments after Glock Asia-Pacific
"Exploring the Shift to Independent Arbitrator Appointments After Glock Asia-Pacific: A Discussion on the End of Closed Panels" Background In Glock Asia-Pacific Ltd. v. Union of India, (2023) 8 SCC 226, the Supreme Court addressed a common feature of government contracts in India: the arbitration clause that vests one party, typically the State or a public authority, with the exclusive right to nominate the arbitrator. The Ministry of Home Affairs had contracted with Glock As


Rescuing the Expired Mandate: Supreme Court on Section 29A Extensions
Supreme Court Reviews Section 29A Extensions: Addressing Expired Mandates with Judicial Insight. Background Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 prescribes a twelve-month period from the completion of pleadings for an arbitral tribunal to deliver its award in domestic arbitrations. Parties may by consent extend this by a further six months under Section 29A(3). Beyond eighteen months, only a court can grant further time, upon sufficient cause shown. The q


The two-view rule: why courts can not rewrite your arbitration award
Understanding the Two-View Rule: Protecting Arbitration Awards from Judicial Rewrite. Background In Reliance Infrastructure Ltd. v. State of Goa, (2024) 1 SCC 479, the Supreme Court was called upon to decide whether a High Court, exercising appellate jurisdiction under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, could reverse findings of an arbitral tribunal merely because it preferred a different reading of the contractual terms. The dispute arose from a Power


Supreme court rules: heirs of deceased arbitration parties can not bypass the arbitration act to approach High courts John v. S. Mukanchand Bothra and HUF (Died) represented by LRs and Ors.
Supreme Court Decision: Heirs of Deceased Arbitration Parties Must Adhere to Arbitration Act, Cannot Directly Approach High Courts in Case of John v. S. Mukanchand Bothra and HUF. The interface between constitutional remedies and statutory arbitration mechanisms has long been a subject of intense judicial scrutiny in Indian jurisprudence. The Supreme Court of India, in its recent pronouncement dated April 20, 2026, has once again reaffirmed the self-contained and exhaustive n


The Section 9 Bar: Once a Tribunal is Constituted, the Civil Court Door Shuts
"Exploring the Implications of the Section 9 Bar: Understanding Civil Court Limitations Post-Tribunal Constitution with adrEdge." ArcelorMittal Nippon Steel India Ltd. v. Essar Bulk Terminal Ltd. | Supreme Court of India | Civil Appeal No. 5700 of 2021 | Decided: 14.09.2021 The moment an arbitral tribunal is constituted, a civil court's power to entertain a fresh application for interim relief is not merely curtailed. It is effectively suspended, unless the applicant can dem


The Section 11 Deadline: Supreme Court Settles the Limitation Clock for Arbitrator Appointment
Supreme Court Decision Clarifies Arbitrator Appointment Deadlines Under Section 11. M/s. Arif Azim Co. Ltd. v. M/s. Aptech Ltd. | Supreme Court of India | Section 11(6), Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 How long does a party have to knock on the court's door when the other side refuses to appoint an arbitrator? The Supreme Court has now answered this with clarity: three years, and not a day more. In a significant ruling that tidies up one of arbitration law's long-stan
bottom of page
_edited.png)