Arbitration Cases Weekly Round Up: 11th January To 18th January, 2026

NOMINAL INDEX

Bhagheeratha Engineering Ltd. v. State of Kerala, 2026 LLBiz SC 5

Motilal Oswal Financial Services Limited v. Santosh Cordeiro & Anr., 2026 LLBiz SC 4

Black Gold Resources Private Limitada v. International Coal Ventures Pvt. Ltd & Anr., 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 41

Om Prakash v. Smt Laxmi Maurya, 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 54

Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited v. Delkon India Pvt. Ltd., 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 36

National Highways Authority of India v. Roadway Solutions India Infra Limited, 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 44

Shyam Indus Power Solution Private Ltd. v. Madhya Pradesh Madhya Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Co. Ltd., 2026 LLBiz HC (MP) 6

Qatar Holding LLC v. Byju Raveendran, 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 7

Manjeet Singh T. Anand v. Nishant Enterprises HUF & Anr., 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 31

Sunfield Global Pte Limited v. Liberty Investments Private Limited, 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 29

Ramesh Venkateshwar Somani v. Rajesh Somani & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 28

Lotus Logistics and Developers Pvt Ltd v. Evertop Apartments Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 27

Chaitanya Kumar Dey v. Union of India, 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 7

Siddharta Chandra v. SK. Abdul Kasem & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 12

Tata Steel Limited v. Ministry of Corporate Affairs & Anr., 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 32

Jagannath Heights Pvt Ltd v. M/S Sammaan Capital Limited, 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 13

Anshul Chawla v. Taskis India Pvt. Ltd., 2026 LLBiz HC (MP) 5

Athletics Sangh Madhya Pradesh Bhopal v. Union of India & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC(MP) 4

Koshy Phillip v. Thomas P. Mathew & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC (KER) 6

Supreme Court Reports

Parties Cannot Rely On Pre-Arbitration Steps They Frustrated: Supreme Court

Case Title: Bhagheeratha Engineering Ltd. v. State of Kerala

Citation: 2026 LLBiz SC 5

Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 39 of 2026

The Supreme Court set aside a Kerala High Court judgment that invalidated an arbitration award against the Kerala State Government, holding that a party cannot rely on contractual dispute resolution timelines when its own conduct has frustrated the process. It also reiterated its earlier rulings that the non-issuance of a notice under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act does not bar claims before an arbitral tribunal if the disputes are otherwise arbitrable.

The court observed that “no one can be permitted to take advantage of one's own wrong.” It further reiterated that Section 21 is procedural in nature and serves only to determine when arbitration commences for limitation purposes and is not a precondition for the existence of the tribunal's jurisdiction. The court clarified that once an arbitral tribunal is constituted, it is required to decide all claims and counterclaims that fall within the scope of the arbitration agreement.

Courts Cannot Decide Arbitrability While Appointing Arbitrators: Supreme Court Dismisses Motilal Oswal's Appeal

Case Title: Motilal Oswal Financial Services Limited v. Santosh Cordeiro & Anr.

Citation: 2026 LLBiz SC 4

Case Number: Civil Appeal no. 36 of 2026

The Supreme Court of India held that courts cannot decide questions of arbitrability while appointing arbitrators, even when a party relies on a special statute to oppose arbitration. At the Section 11 stage, the court said judges are required to “confine to the examination of the existence of an arbitration agreement” and nothing beyond that. On that basis, the court dismissed an appeal filed by Motilal Oswal Financial Services Limited challenging the appointment of an arbitrator in its dispute with licensor Santosh Cordeiro and upheld a Bombay High Court order allowing the arbitration to proceed.

“Section 41 is a provision conferring jurisdiction on the Small Causes Court for certain types of disputes and cannot be interpreted to mean that ex proprio vigore (by its own force), it neutralizes arbitration clauses in agreements,” the bench said.

The bench emphasised that questions on whether Section 41 applies, whether the claim is in the nature of licence fees or a debt, and how earlier precedents should be applied must be left to the arbitral tribunal under Section 16.

High Court Reports

Delhi High Court

Unconditional Bank Guarantee Can Be Invoked Despite Contract Termination Dispute: Delhi High Court Reiterates

The Court clarified that it cannot go into the legality of termination at the interim stage. “This Court today in a Section 9 petition cannot adjudicate whether the termination of the Contract was right or wrong or whether the respondent No. 2 was entitled to recover the overburden charges already paid, as such issues touch the merit of the matter and are for the Arbitral Tribunal to decide,” Justice Singh observed.

Mere Delay In Pronouncement Of Arbitral Award Does Not Invalidate It Unless Prejudice Is Shown: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has held that mere delay in pronouncement of an arbitral award does not by itself suffice to set it aside under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ("Arbitration Act") unless the delay is undue, unexplained and demonstrably prejudicial to the parties. The Delhi High Court has held that a delay in the pronouncement of an arbitral award is not enough to set it aside, unless the delay is undue, unexplained and demonstrably prejudicial to the parties.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Amit Mahajan dismissed an appeal filed under section 37 of the Arbitration Act read with section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, thereby upholding an arbitral award directing repayment of a friendly loan along with interest. It further observed that the burden to prove repayment lay on the appellant who failed to produce any receipts or documentary evidence. On the objection regarding unregistered and insufficiently stamped mortgage deeds, the court observed that even assuming that the registration was mandatory, the documents could still be relied upon for collateral purposes under section 49 of the Registration Act.

Contractual Bar On Interest Binds Arbitrator; Delhi High Court Partly Sets Aside Award In BHEL–Delkon Dispute

Case Title: Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited v. Delkon India Pvt. Ltd.

Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 36

Case Number: FAO (COMM) 109/2023

In a dispute involving public sector undertaking Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited, the Delhi High Court set aside a ₹66.50 lakh interest component of an arbitral award that had directed BHEL to pay Delkon India Private Limited. A division bench of Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Vinod Kumar ruled that the contractual bar on interest was binding and could not be bypassed by classifying claims as arising from termination rather than from the contract.

The bench observed that arbitral discretion to award interest operates subject to the agreement between the parties and that, once interest is expressly excluded, the arbitrator has no authority to grant it for the period before the award. At the same time, the court declined to interfere with the compensation awarded on Delkon's counterclaims. It reiterated that where loss is established but precise proof of the amount is difficult, an arbitrator is entitled to adopt a reasonable estimation method, provided the compensation is not arbitrary.

Delhi-Mumbai Expressway: NHAI Can Move to End Expressway Contract After Delhi High Court Lifts Restraining Order

The Delhi High Court, while hearing an appeal under Section 37(1)(b), observed that an injunction granted by the Section 9 (power to grant interim measures) court ought not to have been granted. This injunction had restrained the National Highway Authorities of India (NHAI) from proceeding in furtherance of its notice of intention to terminate, dated 23.12.2025. Section 37(1)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the Act), provides a right to appeal to the competent court against a court order that either grants or refuses to grant interim measures under Section 9 of the Act, which deals with interim relief during arbitration proceedings

The bench further observed that Section 41 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, fetters the Court's power to grant an injunction, and Section 20A of the Act mandates that an injunction cannot be granted if it would delay the progress of an infrastructural development.

The bench observed that the balance of convenience lies in favour of the nation and its citizen and therefore in NHAI, because the citizens cannot be deprived of a well-constructed highway to ensure smooth and free movement.

Karnataka High Court

Karnataka High Court Orders Ad-Interim Attachment of Aakash Shares Beneficially Owned by Byju Raveendran

Taking note of the submissions and the earlier restraint order, Justice Yadav held that an ad-interim arrangement was warranted at this stage. Affirming the earlier restraint, the court directed that alienation of 17,891,289 shares held by Beeaar Investco Pte. Ltd., insofar as the beneficial interest of the award debtor in Aakash Educational Services Ltd. is concerned, would stand protected by an order of attachment. The court clarified that the attachment is a provisional arrangement, subject to final orders to be passed on the interlocutory application. Notices were directed to be issued to Beeaar Investco Pte. Ltd. and Aakash Educational Services Ltd., and the matter has been listed for further hearing after two weeks.

Bombay High Court

'Karta' Personally Liable if HUF is Unable to Satisfy Arbitral Award: Bombay HC

The Court noted that the arbitral tribunal's refusal to pass a separate money award against the Karta did not bar execution against him, as questions of Hindu law liability “never and could never even arise for consideration before the Arbitral Tribunal.” Since the HUF admittedly carried on business, the Karta's personal assets were held reachable in execution.

Bar On Court Granting Interim Relief Once Tribunal Is Constituted Applies Even In Foreign Arbitration: Bombay HC

Case Title: Sunfield Global Pte Limited v. Liberty Investments Private Limited

Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 29

Case Number: Commercial Arbitration Petition (L) NO.34540 OF 2025

The Bombay High Court has refused to grant interim relief to a Singapore-based company, holding that once a foreign-seated arbitral tribunal is constituted, Indian courts should be slow in entertaining unless the party shows that the tribunal cannot provide an effective remedy. Justice Bharati Dangre clarified that this principle applies even to foreign-seated arbitrations. While Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act (for interim relief) can be invoked in such cases, the bar under Section 9(3) (bar on relief after constitution of arbitral tribunal) still operates after the tribunal is in place.

“Without taking recourse to the remedy available to move the Arbitral Tribunal, the Petitioner has approached this Court by invoking Section 9… in the wake of the embargo created under sub-section (3) as the Tribunal is already constituted and the better course available to a party is to approach the Tribunal, and in this case, I do not find that the Tribunal is lacking power to consider such a request,” the court said.

Complete Assignment for Consideration Prevails Over Conditional Agreement for Transfer of Future Shares: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court upheld an arbitral award involving a long-standing family dispute over shares in a demerged company. Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan held the arbitral tribunal's decision—that a later sale to a bona fide purchaser takes precedence over an earlier conditional arrangement—to be a plausible and well-reasoned conclusion. “The finding that the 2012 Agreement was a much wider Agreement would not mean that the Learned Arbitral Tribunal exceeded its scope. The Learned Arbitral Tribunal was fully entitled to compare the competing considerations that were clamouring for favourable consideration by the Learned Arbitral Tribunal, between the two instruments, in order to adjudicate the disputes between the parties.Likewise, the Learned Arbitral Tribunal's reference to and reliance on the sale of office premises does not result in the Learned Arbitral Tribunal having gone outside the scope of the reference to arbitration as set out in the Reference Order”, the court held.

Specific Performance After Contract Termination Permissible If Revived By Conduct, Even In Arbitration: Bombay High Court

The court clarified that the bar against seeking specific performance of a terminated contract applies only where the plaintiff treats the contract as finally ended as on the date of filing proceedings.

Calcutta High Court

Arbitration | Mechanical Reliance On No Claim Certificate Is Non-Adjudication: Calcutta High Court

Case Title: Chaitanya Kumar Dey v. Union of India

Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 7

Case Number: AP-777 of 2016

The Calcutta High Court held that mechanical reliance on a 'No Claim Certificate,' without examining whether the claims raised were covered by such document, amounts to non-adjudication. A Single Bench of Justice Gaurang Kanth in an order dated January 9 explained that the mechanical reliance on such certificates, without examining the surrounding facts and evidence, amounts to non-adjudication and renders the award vulnerable to challenge. The Court observed:

“Even execution of a full and final discharge voucher does not bar a contractor from claiming further amounts, provided entitlement is established on the basis of adequate material. Mechanical reliance on a No Claim Certificate, without such examination, amounts to non-adjudication.” The court reiterated that arbitrators are duty-bound to examine the circumstances surrounding execution of discharge vouchers and cannot treat them as an absolute bar to genuine claims.

Statutory Bar Under Commercial Courts Act Operates As Inherent Subject Matter Limitation In Arbitration: Calcutta High Court

Case Title: Siddharta Chandra v. SK. Abdul Kasem & Ors

Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 12

Case Number: FMA 1738 of 2025 with CAN 1 of 2025

The Calcutta High Court held that the statutory bar in the Commercial Courts Act operates as an inherent subject-matter bar in arbitration related proceedings and cannot be waived by consent or conduct of the parties, even if no objection is raised before the court of first instance. Justices Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Supratim Bhattacharya made the observation on January 13, while deciding an appeal filed by Siddharta Chandra challenging an order passed by the District Judge, Hooghly, under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The respondent party argued that since no objection regarding maintainability or jurisdiction was raised before the Section 9 court, the appellant was precluded from raising it at the appellate stage. Rejecting this contention, the high court held that a statutory jurisdictional bar cannot be cured by silence, waiver, or acquiescence and non-argument before the designated court was entirely irrelevant.

Reference to Arbitration Requires Independent Application, Cannot be Inferred From Plea to Reject Plaint: Calcutta High Court

Case Title: Jagannath Heights Pvt Ltd v. M/S Sammaan Capital Limited

Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 13

Case No: IA NO. GA-COM/2/2025 In CS-COM/801/2024

The Calcutta High Court rejected a Master's summons application filed by M/s Samman Capital Limited, that sought stay of a commercial suit on the grounds of an existing arbitration clause. Emphasizing the need for a specific prayer, the Court held that "the age old settled legal principle is that when a statute prescribes to do certain thing in a certain manner, the thing has to be done in the same manner or not at all. All other modes are expressly forbidden."

It held that as none of the prayers in the Master's Summons sought reference to arbitration under Section 8, it deemed the application untenable. The Judge additionally stressed that liberal construction is not permitted in this context, as it would "defeat the legislative intent" behind the enactment. The Bench clarified that the “provision under Section 8 being a specific statutory provision has to be applied strictly by way of a separate application with specific prayer and it would be of no relevance whether in the written statement, the defendant has raised the issue or not”.

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Parties Must Exhaust Contractual Dispute Resolution Before Court Appoints Arbitrator: MP High Court

The Court observed, “Applicants have to first exhaust the procedure as agreed upon in terms of Clause 13 of the Employment Agreement and only after that, if occasion so arise, they can approach the competent Court for redressal of their grievance.” Referring to the comprehensive procedure laid down under the MCIA Rules for appointment, challenge, and replacement of arbitrators, the Court held that the applicants could not bypass the agreed mechanism and directly seek appointment of an arbitrator from the Court.

Commercial Courts Cannot Hear Non-Commercial Arbitration Disputes Without Specified Claim Value: MP High Court

Case Title: Athletics Sangh Madhya Pradesh Bhopal v. Union of India & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(MP) 4

Case Number: Misc. Petition No. 4181 of 2025

The Madhya Pradesh High Court clarified that arbitration challenges arising from non-commercial disputes with no determinable monetary value cannot be heard by Commercial Courts, even if such courts function at the level of a Civil Judge (Senior Division). The court clarified that the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 applies only when two conditions are met, the dispute must be commercial in nature and must have a specified value as defined under the law.

Justice Vivek Jain said that where these requirements are absent, Commercial Courts do not have jurisdiction. The court observed: “In the present case, since there is no specified value of the claim, therefore, the application could not have been transferred to the Commercial Court and it should continue only as per the Act of 1996 before the Court as defined in Section 2(e) as the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction, which shall be the Principal District Judge or any District Judge under him.”

While reaffirming that the Commercial Courts Act can override the Arbitration Act in appropriate cases, the court made it clear that such overriding effect applies only to commercial disputes of specified value.

Kerala High Court

No Substantive Review Maintainable Against Orders Appointing Arbitrators: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Koshy Phillip v. Thomas P. Mathew & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (KER) 6

Case Number: R.P. 1582 of 2025 in A.R. No. 179 of 2025

The Kerala High Court ruled that only limited procedural correction and not a substantive review is permissible of orders appointing or refusing to appoint an arbitrator under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. A single-judge bench of Justice S Manu said the law on arbitration is a self-contained code and does not permit courts to reopen such orders on merits, as that would slow down arbitration instead of speeding it up.

The court cautioned that allowing substantive review of Section 11 orders would cut directly against this objective, observing that “being a self-contained and exhaustive code on arbitration law, the Act carries the imperative that what is permissible under the law ought to be performed only in the manner indicated, and not otherwise.” The court clarified that only a narrow procedural review is possible to correct obvious or patent errors. Anything more would amount to reopening the merits, which the Act does not allow. The court warned that “entertaining petitions for substantive review against orders issued under Section 11 of the Act would defeat the purpose and object of arbitration law.”