Punjab & Haryana High Court Appoints Arbitrator In Shareholder Dispute Over Chairmanship Rotation In KPH Dream Cricket

The Punjab and Haryana High Court, on 23rd December 2025, appointed Justice Harinder Singh Sidhu as the sole arbitrator to resolve a dispute over the "rotational chairmanship" of KPH Dream Cricket Private Limited, the company that owns and administers the IPL franchise - Punjab Kings. Additionally, the Court noted that when appointing an arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, the role of the judiciary is restricted to the determination of the arbitration agreement's...

Arbitrator Can't Rewrite Contract By Linking Repayment To Commercial Success Contrary To TDA Terms: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has set aside an arbitral award, holding that the arbitrator travelled beyond the contractual terms by making repayment of financial assistance contingent upon commercial success of the project contrary to the express stipulations of the Technology Development Assistance Agreement (TDA). Justice Jasmeet Singh held that “No doubt the Arbitrator has the power to interpret the terms and conditions of the contract, but, the Arbitrator being the creature of the contract,...

Arbitration Petition Seeking Stay Of Eviction Over Immovable Property Is “Suit For Land”; Outside Jurisdiction Of Original Side: Calcutta HC

The Calcutta High Court has held that a petition filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act, seeking a stay on eviction notice in respect of immovable property would amount to a suit for land and is not maintainable if the property is situated outside the territorial jurisdiction of the court's original side. The court said proceedings which directly impact possession of land cannot be decided by it merely because they arise from an arbitration agreement. A Division Bench of...

[Arbitration Act] S.37(1)(c) Applies To Entire S.34; Dismissal On Limitation Or Technical Grounds Is Appealable: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court recently observed that the application of Section 37(1)(c) of the A&C Act is not limited to any specific sub-section, and applies to the entire Section 34 of the A&C Act. The Court, while clarifying the law laid down in Chintels India Ltd. v. Bhayana Builders Pvt. Ltd., [2021 INSC 76], observed that a dismissal of a Section 34 application on the grounds of limitation can be challenged u/s 37(1)(c) of the A&C Act. The division bench of Justice Navin...

Delhi High Court Slaps ₹1 Lakh Costs On Securities Brokerage That Undertook Trades Without Client Mandate

The Delhi High Court recently pulled up a stock brokerage firm for indulging in unauthorised trading and “sharp practices” aimed at earning commission income at the cost of investors. It also imposed a costs of Rs 1 lakh for prolonged harassment of its client. Dismissing an appeal by Trustline Securities Limited, the court held that trades executed without client instructions and without mandatory margin money were illegal and showed “scant regard” for the regulatory framework meant to protect...

Delhi High Court Upholds Arbitral Referral Of Trademark & Passing Off Dispute Involving "Pind Balluchi" Restaurant

The Delhi High Court Bench of Justices Om Prakash Shukla and C. Hari Shankar have allowed the Section 8, Arbitration and Conciliation (“ACA”) application seeking referral for arbitration between M/s Triom Hospitality (“Triom”) and M/s J.S. Hospitality Services Pvt. Ltd. (“J.S.”) regarding the registered trademark of the famous “Pind Balluchi” restaurants. Facts The Appellant i.e. Triom filed the present petition under Section 37, ACA challenging the order dated 28.08.2024 passed by...

Arbitration Clause In Expired Lease Cannot Be Invoked To Execute Fresh Lease: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court has recently held that an arbitration agreement in an expired lease deed cannot be automatically extended to govern disputes relating to the execution of a fresh lease, even if the proposed lease is claimed to arise from prior correspondence between the parties. Justice Aniruddha Roy in an order dated 23 December, 2025, dismissed an application filed by HDFC Bank Ltd under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, seeking reference of the dispute to...

Past Employment With Party Does Not Make Arbitrator Ineligible: J&K&L High Court Reaffirms

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court on Monday reiterated that an arbitrator does not become ineligible merely because he was employed by one of the parties in the past. The court held that past government service, by itself, does not indicate bias under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act unless it is shown that the arbitrator has a continuing business relationship or had advised a party in connection with the dispute. Justice Sanjay Dhar delivered the ruling on December 22, 2025,...

Bombay High Court Rejects Mumbai Metro's Arbitration Request Application, Rules Settlement Agreement Supersedes Original Contract

The Bombay High Court recently rejected the Mumbai Metro One Private Limited's (MMOPL) request to have its dispute with Hindustan Construction Company (HCC) resolved by way of arbitration. The Court deciding that the arbitration clause in the original contract no longer applies to new issues emerging from the settlement, ruled that once a "full and final" settlement agreement is executed, it supersedes the original contract. Justice Abhay Ahuja, on 18th December, 2025 stating that “the...

Res Judicata Not Attracted Where Issue Was Not Framed In Earlier Proceedings: Bombay High Court Partially Modifies Arbitral Award

The Bombay High Court has held that res judicata does not apply where the issue in earlier proceedings was neither framed nor directly adjudicated and that the court exercising jurisdiction under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) can modify an award by reducing the rate of interest where bad part of an award is severable from the good one. Justice Sandeep V. Marne observed: “Mere reasons recorded in a previous round of litigation for deciding...

Non-Obstante Clause U/S 13(2) Commercial Courts Act Prevails Over S.10 Delhi HC Act: Delhi High Court Dismisses Arbitral Appeals

The Delhi High Court Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela while dismissing an appeal under Section 10, Delhi High Court Act (“DHC Act”) and Section 13(2), Commercial Courts Act (“CC Act”) observed that the expression “any other law for the time being in force” used in Section 13(2), CC Act encompasses in its fold the provisions of Section 10 of the DHC Act as well. Thus, Section 13(2), CC Act overrides Section 10, DHC Act in relation to appeals in...

Fresh Arbitration Notice is Mandatory For Second Round Of Arbitration After Earlier Award Is Set Aside: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court has held that a fresh arbitration notice under section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) is mandatory for initiating a second round of arbitral proceedings after an earlier arbitral award has been set aside even when the award was declared as a nullity due to invalid appointment of the arbitrator. Justice S. Manu while dismissing the Arbitration petitions held that once an arbitral award is issued, the arbitration proceedings stand...