Court Intervention In Arbitrator Appointment Required Only If Institution Fails: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court has held that court intervention for the appointment of arbitrators is required only when an arbitral institution fails to discharge its designated functions in appointing an arbitrator. A single-judge bench of Justice Sandeep V Marne held that once parties agree to resolve disputes through an arbitral institution, the appointment procedure prescribed by that institution must be followed.“In case of an institutional arbitration, application for appointment of...

Court Cannot Use Attachment In Arbitration To Turn Unsecured Damages Claim Into Secured Debt: AP High Court

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has said that a claim for demurrage, which is essentially a charge demanded for delay in loading or unloading a ship, cannot be treated as an actual money debt until an arbitral tribunal finally decides who is at fault. Because of this, the court held that such a claim cannot be secured by attaching goods under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act while arbitration is still pending. A division bench of Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Maheswara Rao Kuncheam, in...

Sole Arbitrator Returning Finding Based On Presumption, Modifying Agreement Vitiates Award: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has held that finding returned by a Sole Arbitrator based on presumption and which has the effect of modifying the agreement, vitiates the arbitral award.The bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Jaspreet Singh held “The Sole Arbitrator by returning a finding which is not based on any evidence and material on record and merely is based on presumption coupled with the fact that it has the effect of modifying the terms of the agreement and also amounts to...

Second Arbitral Reference Maintainable When Award Is Set Aside Without Adjudication On Merits: J&K&L High Court

The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has held that a second reference to arbitration is maintainable where an arbitral award has been set aside under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ("Arbitration Act") without any adjudication on merits of the claims, leaving the underlying disputes unresolved. Justice Sanjay Dhar said while allowing the application seeking appointment of a fresh arbitrator after the earlier award had been set aside by the Designated...

Bar U/S 42 Of Arbitration Act Not Attracted Where Seat Is Chosen Before First Application Is Filed: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court has held that where parties have already chosen a seat of arbitration before the first application is filed, the courts exercising jurisdiction over the seat alone will have jurisdiction over all subsequent applications, including those under sections 34 and 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ("Arbitration Act") notwithstanding that earlier application may have been filed before another High Court. Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya held while...

Arbitral Tribunal Not Declared As “Court”, False Evidence Before Arbitrator Does Not Attract S.195 CrPC: J&K&L High Court

Clarifying the scope of criminal law in arbitral proceedings, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has held that the bar contained in Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not apply to allegations of false evidence given before an Arbitral Tribunal, as an arbitrator is not a “court” within the meaning of that provision.“… the term “Court” has been defined in sub-section (3) of Section 195 of Cr. P. C to mean a civil, revenue or criminal court and it includes a Tribunal...

Forcible Eviction Disputes Not Arbitrable Despite Existence Of Arbitration Clause In Lease Agreement: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court has held that disputes relating to eviction of a tenant are not arbitrable even where the lease agreement contains an arbitration clause and that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court cannot be ousted by such non-arbitrable reliefs. Justice P. Krishna Kumar observed while allowing an Original Petition filed by a retired Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd (“BSNL”) employee challenging an order of the Munsiff Court, Ernakulam, which had referred the dispute to arbitration under...

Buyer Cannot Seek Separate Arbitral Reference For Counter-Claims Once Arbitration Under MSMED Act Has Commenced: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court has held that once arbitral proceedings are commenced before the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council (“Council”) under Section 18(3) of the MSMED Act, 2006, a buyer cannot seek appointment of a separate arbitrator under section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ("Arbitration Act") and therefore all claims including claims for damages by the buyer must be raised before the Council itself which then functions as the arbitral forum. ...

Arbitrator Cannot Invalidate Admitted Retirement Deed Without Recording Clear Finding Of Fabrication Or Manipulation: Delhi High Court

The Delhi high Court has dismissed an appeal under section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act ("Arbitration Act") and upheld an order passed by a Single Judge setting aside an arbitral award which had declared retirement deed of a partner as null and void. A Division bench comprising Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Madhu Jain held that once signatures on the retirement deed were admitted, the arbitral tribunal was not justified in invalidating the deed without returning a...

Delhi High Court Refuses To Replace Arbitrator Despite 16-Month Delay, Says Substitution At Final Stage Defeats Expeditious Arbitration

The Delhi High Court rejected an application seeking the substitution a retired Supreme Court Judge as the sole arbitrator, despite a delay of more than 16 months in announcing the arbitral award. The Court found it better suited to grant a short extension to facilitate the finality of the proceedings rather than unsettling them through fresh adjudication. The Bench comprising of Justice Subramonium Prasad, on 16th December, 2025, observed that where arbitral proceedings have concluded and the...

Arbitral Tribunal Of Retired Railway Officers Invalid Without Express Waiver U/S 12(5) A&C Act: MP High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court bench of Justice Vivek Jain has terminated the mandate of an arbitral tribunal constituted by Railways holding that unilateral appointment of railway officers as arbitrators despite a clear refusal by the contractor to waive the appointment under section 12(5) of the Arbitration Act rendered the tribunal de jure ineligible. The petitioner, Continental Telepower Industries Limited, was awarded a contract by Indian Railways for supply of PVC insulated...

Arbitrator Cannot Disregard Interest Clause In Invoices While Enforcing Arbitration Clause Contained In Them: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has held that once invoices are accepted as binding contractual documents, an arbitral tribunal cannot selectively enforce some clauses while ignoring other clauses contained in the same invoices. Allowing the appeal under section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act (Arbitration Act), Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha set aside an arbitral award on the ground that the arbitral tribunal had erred in refusing to grant contractual claim for interest. The appellant...