adrEdge by Frugal Scientific Pvt. Ltd. wins the "Best ODR Innovation Award" at the 2nd Global LendTech, Risk & Collection Summit, Bengaluru, 19th August 2026. Bengaluru, India — 19th August 2026 We're proud to share a milestone moment for adrEdge and the entire Frugal Scientific team: adrEdge by Frugal Scientific Private Limited has been honored with the Best ODR Innovation Award at the 2nd Edition Global LendTech, Risk & Collection Summit & Awards Series, held at the Radisso

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

Supreme Court Provides Clarity on Arbitration Clauses in Loan Agreements Affecting Personal Guarantors. The Supreme Court of India, in National Skill Development Corporation v. Surya Wires Private Limited & Ors., decided on 8 September 2026, examined whether an arbitration clause contained in a Loan Agreement could bind a person who had executed a Personal Guarantee in his individual capacity, where the Guarantee was expressly incorporated into the Loan Agreement. The Court

Kerala High Court Rules Arbitrators Cannot Appoint Advocate Commissioners for Evidence Collection; Legal Powers Limited Under Section 17, as Barred by Sections 26 and 27. Case Title: DLF Southern Towns Pvt. Ltd. v. Aditya Deo and Anr. Citation: (2026) ibclaw.in 4484 HC Coram: Justice Easwaran S. The Kerala High Court has held that an Arbitral Tribunal does not have the power to appoint an advocate commissioner to collect evidence, and that the power to grant interim measures

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

"Calcutta High Court Rules: Arbitral Tribunals May Reference CPC for Justice Interests, Without Mandatory Application of Commercial Courts Act Amendments." Case Title: Kolkata Municipal Corporation v. Bengal Shelter Housing Development Ltd. Citation: (2026) ibclaw.in 4553 HC Coram: Justice Shampa Dutt The Calcutta High Court has set aside a procedural order passed by a Sole Arbitrator, holding that the chief examination of all witnesses of a party ought to be recorded before

"Bombay High Court rules Section 9 petition maintainable amid ongoing NCLT proceedings due to shareholders' agreement, as shown on adrEdge ODR platform." Case Name: Shiv Keshrimal Agrawal v. Farma Hub Overseas Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. Citation: (2026) ibclaw.in 4177 HC Coram: Justice Amit Borkar The Bombay High Court has partly allowed a petition filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, granting limited interim protection to a Director and 33% shareholde

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

Bombay High Court Restores Commercial Suit Due to Authority's Delay, Highlighting Judicial Oversight. Mediation Notice Jivaraj Ravaji Gandhi v. Solapur Jilha Dudh Utpadak va Prakriya Sangh Maryadit Solapur and Ors., Commercial First Appeal No. 23 of 2025, decided on 7 August 2026 by the Bombay High Court (Madhav J. Jamdar and Pravin S. Patil, JJ.) Background The Appellant, a supplier of grains, oiled cakes and cattle feed, had supplied goods to the Respondent dairy cooperati

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

"Legal Authority Confirmed: Bombay High Court affirms that interpreting limitation of liability clauses in contracts remains within the arbitrator's jurisdiction, emphasizing non-interference by courts under section 34." Case Name: Conso Feeds v. Alfa Laval (India) Pvt. Ltd. Citation: (2026) ibclaw.in 4335 HC Coram: Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh The Bombay High Court has dismissed a petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, holding that t

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

Arbitration agreements remain valid through assignments, allowing assignees to assume the original lender's role, as confirmed by the Bombay High Court. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. v. Sitaram Energy and Logistics Ltd. Citation: (2026) ibclaw.in 4019 HC Court: High Court of Bombay Case No.: Comm Arbitration Petition (L) No. 5535 of 2025 with Comm Arbitration Petition (L) No. 5944 of 2025 Decided on: 23-Jul-26 Coram: Mr. Justice Amit Borkar The Bombay High Court has held that wher

Writ petitions for interest on delayed payments deemed non-maintainable when contracts prohibit interest and allow civil suits or arbitration, rules the Andhra Pradesh High Court. Yellaboina Mallaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. Citation: (2026) ibclaw.in 4194 HC Court: High Court of Andhra Pradesh Case No.: Writ Petition Nos. 5506, 5608, 5712, 5748, 5781, 8818, 8895, 8978, 9279 and 9730 of 2025 Decided on: 22-Jul-26 Coram: Sri Justice Subba Reddy Satti The Andhra Prad

Bombay High Court Appoints Receiver for Hypothecated Equipment, Rejects Bank Account Attachment Request in Section 9 Petition. Tata Capital Ltd. v. Jain Globals and Ors. Citation: (2026) ibclaw.in 4173 HC Court: High Court of Bombay Case No.: Comm Arbitration Petition (L) No. 8727 of 2026 (with 23 connected petitions) Decided on: 28-Jul-26 Coram: Mr. Justice Amit Borkar The Bombay High Court has held that while a financier is entitled to interim protection for tracing and pre

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

Madras High Court Rules Emden Formula Not Applicable for Dealership Agreement Damages Assessment. Case Title: Hyundai Motor India Ltd. v. St. Antonys Cars Pvt. Ltd. Case Number: OSA No. 38 of 2021 | Madras High Court | Justice P. Velmurugan and Justice K. Govindarajan Thilakavadi The Madras High Court has set aside an arbitral award to the extent it awarded damages to a former automobile dealer by applying the Emden formula, holding that the formula, being confined to comput

Delhi High Court Rejects Plea to Enforce Contract: Section 9 Petition Deemed Not Maintainable for JDA Termination. Case Title: GCD Prime v. DCM Ltd. Case Number: O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 472/2025 | Delhi High Court | Justice Jasmeet Singh The Delhi High Court has dismissed a petition filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, by a real estate developer seeking to restrain a land owning company from acting upon a notice of forfeiture and termination issued

Supreme Court Questions S.K. Jain Verdict on Arbitration Pre-Deposit Clauses, Refers Matter to Full Bench. Case Title: Santosh Associate Pvt. Ltd. v. Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. Case No. : Civil Appeal No. 10953 of 2026 (SLP (C) No. 31245 of 2025) Coram: Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Manmohan Date of Judgment: 17 August 2026 The Supreme Court has expressed doubt over the continued binding effect of its three-judge bench decision

Supreme Court Overturns High Court Decision, Orders Joint Hearing for Article 227 Petitions Related to Section 9 Jurisdiction. Case Details Case Title: Khajuraho Greens LLP and Ors. v. Bestco Cables Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Case No.: Civil Appeal No. 8995 of 2026 (Special Leave Petition (C) No. 21642/2026) Coram: Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran The Supreme Court has set aside an order of the Allahabad High Court and directed that two connected petitions filed

"Exploring Contractual Liabilities: Can TAMP Rates Impose Demurrage Without Explicit Contract Terms? | adrEdge ODR Platform" Vizag Seaport Pvt. Ltd. v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. Case: APO 112 of 2022 with IA No. GA/1/2022 Court: High Court of Calcutta Date of Decision: 25 June 2026 Coram: Arijit Banerjee J. and Om Narayan Rai J. Citation: (2026) ibclaw.in 3412 HC Statutes: Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 The Calcutta High Court's dec

Supreme Court Finalizes Decision on SLP Related to Arbitrator's Stay of Proceedings, Maintaining Flexibility Amid IBC Moratorium Issue. Case Details Case Title: Umesh Bajaj v. Amit Khaneja and Anr. Coram: Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran The Supreme Court has disposed of a Special Leave Petition filed against an order of an Arbitrator on a plea for stay of arbitral proceedings on account of interim moratorium under Section 96 of the Insolvency and Bankrupt

Delhi High Court declares unilateral appointment of a sole arbitrator as void from the beginning, nullifying the award. Case Details Case Title: Airports Authority of India v. Ahluwalia Contracts India Ltd. Coram: Justice Avneesh Jhingan The Delhi High Court has set aside an arbitral award on the ground that the appointment of the sole arbitrator was unilateral and in violation of the amended Section 12(5) read with the Seventh Schedule of the Arbitration and Conciliation Ac

Karnataka High Court Rules: Appellant's Award Nullified Due to Patent Illegality Integration. Case Details Case Title: Krishna Murthy Constructions v. Perfect Electricals and Ors. Coram: Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice K.S. Hemalekha The Karnataka High Court has held that where the principal claim awarded in favour of a party is found to be patently illegal, the award is not severable and the entire award is liable to be set aside under Section 34 of the Arbitration a

Supreme Court directs MSME dispute to Delhi International Arbitration Centre, leaving the question of independent recourse under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act unresolved. Patel Infrastructure Ltd. v. Aditya Construction | Civil Appeal No. 10057 of 2026 | Supreme Court of India | Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva | Decided on August 5, 2026 Background The Supreme Court was called upon to consider whether a buyer of goods or services from a micro or small

Supreme Court Rules Non-Signatories Are Bound by Arbitration Clauses in Identical Share Purchase Agreements. KKH Finvest Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. Ashiesh Shukla and Ors. | Civil Appeal No. 10056 of 2026 | Supreme Court of India | Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva | Decided on August 5, 2026 Background The Supreme Court examined whether a non-signatory to a Memorandum of Settlement (MoS) could be treated as a veritable party to the arbitration agreement contained

Delhi High Court Clarifies Debarment Orders as Administrative Actions: Section 9 Petitions Deemed Unmaintainable, Highlights adrEdge. NCC Ltd. v. Airport Authority of India | O.M.P. (I) (COMM) 140/2026 | Delhi High Court | Mr. Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar | Decided on July 1, 2026 Background The Delhi High Court has held that a challenge to a debarment order issued by the Airport Authority of India (AAI) against a contractor is not arbitrable, since such an order stems

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 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

Calcutta High Court Upholds Arbitral Award, Confirms Appellant's Breach in Supply Contract Dispute. Case Title: Neo Metaliks Ltd. v. Orrisa Metaliks Pvt. Ltd. Coram: Justice Debangsu Basak and Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi The Calcutta High Court has dismissed an appeal filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, against a judgment of the Single Judge refusing to interfere with an arbitral award under Section 34 of the Act. The Division Bench of Justic

Bombay High Court Clarifies Legal Intervention: Understanding Section 9 in Norvic Shipping Asia PTE Ltd. v. Zigma International. The Bombay High Court in Norvic Shipping Asia PTE Ltd. v. Zigma International, Commercial Arbitration Petition (L) No. 15734 of 2026, decided on 2 July 2026, has delivered an important judgment explaining the scope of interim protection under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996. The decision discusses the circumstances in which a

Calcutta High Court Rules on Amendment of Written Statements in Commercial Suits: Permitted Anytime Before Trial Under Order VI Rule 17 CPC. Case Title: Dredging and Desiltation Company Pvt. Ltd. v. Mackintosh Burn and Northern Express Consortium and Ors. The Calcutta High Court has held that amendment of a written statement in a commercial suit continues to be governed by the unamended provisions of Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and may be allowed at

Calcutta High Court clarifies that compliance with Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act cannot be replaced by independent mediation in prior non-commercial suits. Case Title: Ramji Lal Agarwal v. Sourav Agarwal The Calcutta High Court has held that once a suit is registered as a commercial suit, the mandatory requirement of pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 must be complied with, and that mediation conducted earlier in a separa

Calcutta High Court emphasizes that mediation cannot be mandated in mutual consent divorce cases, asserting the importance of voluntary participation. Citation: Danish Karim v. Ranjana Chowdhury, F.A.T. 22 of 2026, IA No. CAN 1 of 2026, decided on 20 July 2026, Calcutta High Court. In a significant ruling delivered on 20 July 2026 in Danish Karim v. Ranjana Chowdhury (F.A.T. 22 of 2026), the Calcutta High Court reaffirmed an important principle governing matrimonial disputes

Supreme Court Rules on Article 227: Revising Arbitral Tribunal Orders Requires Clear Lack of Jurisdiction, Featuring adrEdge's Legal Insight Platform. Case Title: Manash Kamal Bezboruah v. Bokahola Tea Company Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. The Supreme Court has held that a High Court, while exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution against an Arbitral Tribunal's order rejecting an application under Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

Supreme Court Enforces 120-Day Timeline for Plaintiff's Written Response to Counter-Claims in Commercial Disputes. Case Title: A.K. Ghosh & Company and Ors. v. Biman Bose and Ors. The Supreme Court has held that the mandatory 120-day timeframe prescribed under the proviso to Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as applicable to commercial suits under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, also governs the filing of a written statement by a plaintiff to a defenda

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

Legal verdict reached in the case of M/s Jai Balaji Industries Ltd. vs. Garuda Ispat Private Limited, as decided on 22 June 2026 by the Chhattisgarh High Court. The decision of the High Court of Chhattisgarh in Jai Balaji Industries Ltd. v. Garuda Ispat Private Limited is an important contribution to the jurisprudence governing disputes under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006. The judgment highlights that while the Act provides a speedy mechanism

Allahabad High Court Upholds the Primacy of Arbitration Seat Over Hearing Venue in Legal Ruling on Jurisdictional Certainty. Bb Coachtech India Private Limited v. The Presiding Officer, Commercial Court and Another Matters Under Article 227 No. 6463 of 2026 Decided on 27 May 2026 High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Before Justice Piyush Agrawal The Allahabad High Court, in its decision dated 27 May 2026 in Bb Coachtech India Private Limited v. The Presiding Officer, Commerc

Delhi High Court Rules Section 21 Notice Not Mandatory for Arbitration Proceedings, Allowing Greater Flexibility in Legal Disputes. Sunil Walia v. Delhi International Arbitration Centre and Anr. | W.P.(C) 6019/2026 | Delhi High Court | Decided: May 4, 2026 | Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav The Delhi High Court, in a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, dismissed a challenge to an interlocutory order passed by a sole arbitrator under the aegis of th

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

"Legal Matters in Focus: Bombay High Court Addresses Fraud, Delay, and Due Process in Securities Arbitration" The Bombay High Court's decision in ABB India Limited v. Sunil Hariram Jaisingh & Ors., delivered on 9 June 2026 by Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan, is a significant contribution to the evolving jurisprudence surrounding securities market disputes, online dispute resolution mechanisms and the limits of arbitrability where allegations of fraud are involved. The judgment

Supreme Court Interprets the Arbitration and Conciliation Act: Insights on Sections 33 and 34 Regarding Limitation Periods. The Supreme Court of India, in its significant judgment delivered on 2 June 2026 in National Highways Authority of India v. T. Younis & Anr., 2026 INSC 616, has settled an important question concerning the computation of limitation under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The decision addresses the interplay between Sections 33 and 34 of the Act

Courtroom Insight: Himachal Pradesh High Court Clarifies Section 29A Extension Rules Regarding Arbitrator Delays. Ramesh Chand v. National Highways Authority of India and Anr. | Himachal Pradesh High Court | Decided on May 19, 2026 The Himachal Pradesh High Court has allowed applications filed under Section 29A(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for extension of time to conclude arbitration proceedings, holding that an application for such extension is maintaina

A gavel poised above legal documents, symbolizing the case of Eureka Forbes Ltd. vs. Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation, highlighting the reaffirmation of fairness in arbitral proceedings. Citation: Eureka Forbes Ltd. v. Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation, O.M.P. (COMM) 502/2024, Delhi High Court Date of Decision: 12 May 2026 Arbitration has long been regarded as an efficient and party-centric mechanism for dispute resolution. However, the flexibili

Delhi High Court rules that civil suits are not impeded by foreign arbitral awards lacking enforceability in India, ensuring causes of action remain separate from unenforceable foreign awards. Campos Brothers Farms v. Matru Bhumi Supply Chain Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. | RFA(OS)(COMM) 3/2025 | Delhi High Court | Decided on May 5, 2026 A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court has set aside an order rejecting a civil plaint at the threshold, holding that the cause of action pleaded in

Delhi High Court Reaffirms Judicial Restraint, Upholds Arbitral Tribunal’s Decision Under Section 34 on Specific Performance. Case: Imran Ahmed Ansari & Anr. v. Intex Technologies (India) Ltd. & Anr. Court: Delhi High Court Citation: (2026) ibclaw.in 3020 HC Date of Decision: 08 May 2026 The Delhi High Court in Imran Ahmed Ansari & Anr. v. Intex Technologies (India) Ltd. & Anr. reaffirmed the narrow scope of judicial interference with arbitral awards under Section 34 of the A

Karnataka High Court Ruling Highlights Section 34 Limitations in Land Acquisition Compensation Awards. Case: P. Nagaraju v. Special Land Acquisition Officer and Competent Authority and Ors. Bench: Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C.M. Poonacha, High Court of Karnataka Background The appellant, P. Nagaraju, owned lands measuring 631 sq. mtrs. in Survey No. 42/1 and 50 sq. mtrs. in Survey No. 92/2 of Mayaganahalli Village, Bidadi Hobli, Ramanagara Taluk and District. The

Madras High Court Rules Writ Petitions Against MSMED Act Proceedings Unmaintainable, Impacting India Glycols Case Case: Kinetic Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Micro Small Enterprises Facilitation Council and Anr. Bench: Justice Abdul Quddhose, High Court of Madras Background Kinetic Industries Pvt. Ltd. filed a writ petition before the Madras High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an order dated July 15, 2025 passed by the Micro and Small Ent

Himachal Pradesh High Court Rules Arbitrator's Administrative Duties Justify Extension under Section 29A. The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that the administrative preoccupations of an arbitrator who simultaneously holds a senior government office constitute sufficient cause for extending the time limit for passing an arbitral award under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Justice Virender Singh extended the mandate of the Divisional Commissione