High Court's Interference Under Article 226/227 Permissible Only If Arbitral Tribunal's Order Is Patently Perverse : Supreme Court

Case Title: SEROSOFT SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. VERSUS DEXTER CAPITAL ADVISORS PVT. LTD.

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 14

The Supreme Court today criticized the High Court's intervention under its Writ Jurisdiction in the Arbitral Proceedings, where it had directed the Arbitral Tribunal to grant additional time for one party to cross-examine another, despite the Tribunal already having provided ample time for cross-examination. Setting aside the High Court's decision, the bench comprising Justices PS Narasimha and Manoj Misra observed that the High Court can interfere with the impugned order under its Writ Jurisdiction only in exceptional circumstances when the impugned order suffers from perversity.

“It is evident from the above that even as per the quote hereinabove interference under Article 226/227 is 'permissible only if the order is completely perverse i.e. that the perversity must stare in the face.”, the court said.

Observing that the High Court failed to point out any perversity in the tribunal's order, the judgment authored by Justice Narasimha deprecated the practice of interfering with the arbitral process when full opportunity was granted to the parties to present their case in the proceedings governed under Section 18 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (“1996 Act”).

Supreme Court Sets Aside Awards Of Over Rs 46 Lakhs Passed Against UP Govt In Sham Arbitration Proceedings

Case Details : STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER VERSUS R.K. PANDEY AND ANOTHER | CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10212 OF 2014

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 45

The Supreme Court on Thursday (January 9) set aside two ex-parte arbitration awards on grounds of fraud played by the litigant who appointed sole arbitrators and conducted 'sham' arbitration proceedings in a service dispute against U.P. Government and Government Hospital where he was employed.

The bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar was hearing an appeal by the State of Uttar Pradesh challenging the veracity of the ex parte awards and the arbitration agreement relied by the respondent on the basis of which such arbitration proceedings were conducted.

The Court observed : "It was not the case of Respondent No. 1, R.K. Pandey that the Municipal and Development Board, Kanpur, or the Governor of Uttar Pradesh has invoked the arbitration clause. The unilateral appointment of the arbitrator by Respondent No. 1, R.K. Pandey is, therefore, contrary to the arbitration clause as propounded by him."

The Court placed reliance on the recent decision in Central Organisation of Railway Electrification v. ECI PIC SMO MCPL (JV), a Joint Venture Company which held that a clause that allows one party to unilaterally appoint a sole arbitrator gives rise to justifiable doubts as to the independence and impartiality of the arbitrator. Further, such a unilateral clause is exclusive and hinders equal participation of the parties in the appointment process of arbitrators.

Supreme Court Flags Stringent Limitation Provisions Curtailing Arbitration Appeal Remedies, Urges Parliament To Address Issue

Case no. – My Preferred Transformation & Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. M/S Faridabad Implements Pvt. Ltd.

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 49

The Supreme Court raised concerns about the interpretation of limitation statutes in arbitration cases and observed that the rigid application of the law could curtail the limited remedy available under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to challenge arbitral awards.

“In our view, the above construction of limitation statutes is quite stringent and unduly curtails a remedy available to arbitrating parties to challenge the validity of an arbitral award. This must be addressed by the Parliament”, the Court observed.

A bench of Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Pankaj Mithal dismissed an appeal filed by a company against a Delhi High Court judgment rejecting its challenge to an arbitral award as barred by limitation under Section 34.

While the Court concluded that the appellant's delay in filing the petition was not condonable under the prevailing legal framework, Justice Narasimha, in his opinion, with which Justice Mithal agreed, highlighted concerns with the strict interpretation of limitation provisions.

Can HC Appoint Sole Arbitrator When Arbitration Clause Provides For Unilateral Appointment Of Arbitrator ? Supreme Court To Consider

Case Detail : M/S R.S. CONSTRUCTION vs. BUILDING CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT

SLP(C) No. 000979 - / 2025

The Supreme Court on Monday ( January 20) agreed to consider the issue of whether the High Court can appoint a sole arbitrator under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 if the arbitration agreement between parties provides for unilateral appointment in violation of the decision in CORE v. M/S ECI SPIC SMO MCML.

The bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar was hearing the challenge to the order of the Patna High Court which refused to appoint an arbitrator under S. 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 in a tender-related dispute. Here, the petitioner who is a private party entered into a work contract with the Building Construction Department of Govt. of Bihar. The High Court ultimately rejected the request of appointing a sole arbitrator.

Arbitration Act | Courts' Jurisdiction Under Sections 34 and 37 Do Not Extend To Modifying Arbitral Award: Supreme Court Reiterates

Case Title: S. JAYALAKSHMI VERSUS THE SPECIAL DISTRICT REVENUE OFFICER & ORS.

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 98

Recently, the Supreme Court affirmed the principle laid down in National Highways Authority of India vs. M. Hakeem & Another that the jurisdiction of the Courts under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (1996 Act) will not extend to modifying an arbitral award.

The bench comprising Justices PS Narasimha and Manoj Misra was hearing the case dealing with the land acquisition compensation under the National Highways Act, 1956. Dissatisfied with the Arbitral Tribunal's decision to award land acquisition compensation @ ₹495/sq.m, the Appellant preferred application before the District Court under Section 34, which had modified the award and enhanced the compensation to be payable @ ₹4,500/sq.m with 9% interest.

Can Arbitral Awards Be Modified Under S. 34 & S.37 Of Arbitration Act? Supreme Court Refers To 5 Judge Bench

The Supreme Court today (January 23) referred to a 5 judge constitution bench the issue of whether Courts have the power to modify an arbitral award under S. 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

The bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justices Sanjay Kumar and KV Viswanathan directed that while considering the scope of powers of the Court to modify arbitral awards, an examination of the scope and contours of S. 34 and 37 will also be needed. The Court would also need to see the extent to which modification powers can be given if such modification is allowed.

Notably, in February 2024, a bench of Justices Dipankar Dutta, K.V. Viswanathan, and Sandeep Mehta referred to the larger bench the question of whether the courts have the power to modify the arbitral award under Sections 34 or 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

S. 16 Arbitration Act | Challenge To Arbitral Tribunal's Jurisdiction Impermissible After Submitting Statement Of Defence : Supreme Court

Case Title: M/S VIDYAWATI CONSTRUCTION COMPANY VERSUS UNION OF INDIA

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 105

The Supreme Court affirmed the principle that the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal cannot be challenged after the submission of the statement of defence.

A bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan was hearing a case in which the respondent had objected to the jurisdiction of the Arbitral Tribunal after submitting its statement of defence. The Arbitral Tribunal rejected the objection and subsequently passed an award. However, the District Judge set aside this award, and this decision was upheld by the Allahabad High Court. Taking reference to Section 16(2) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 ("Act"), the Appellant argued that the High Court erred in affirming the District Judge's decision to set aside the arbitral award. The Appellant contended that by accepting the appointment of the sole arbitrator and being allowed to modify its statement of defence, the Respondent waived its right to challenge the tribunal's jurisdiction after the statement of defence had been filed.

Arbitration Act | Appellate Courts Can't Reassess Awards, Must Limit Enquiry On Public Policy Breach : Supreme Court

Case Title: SOMDATT BUILDERS –NCC – NEC(JV) VERSUS NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 115

The Supreme Court reaffirmed that arbitral awards should only be interfered with in cases of perversity, violation of public policy, or patent illegality. It emphasized that appellate courts cannot reassess the merits of awards and must limit their inquiry to whether the award breaches Section 34(2)(b)(ii) of the Arbitration Act i.e., if the award is against the public policy of India.

The bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan was hearing the case where the dispute arose concerning increased quantities of geogrid required for constructing a reinforced earth (RE) wall as part of a road construction project. NHAI claimed that increased quantities beyond those stated in the Bill of Quantities (BOQ) warranted renegotiation of rates.

High Courts

Andhra Pradesh High Court

While Deciding Petition U/S 9 Of Arbitration Act, Court Cannot Ignore Basic Principles Of CPC: Andhra Pradesh HC

Case Title: Tuf Metallurgical Private Limited Vs. Bst Hk Limited and Others

Case Number: ICOMAA. No.2 of 2024

The Andhra Pradesh High Court bench of Justices Ninala Jayasurya and Nayapathy Vijay observed that in deciding a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act, the Court cannot ignore the basic principles of the CPC. At the same time, the power of the Court to grant relief is not curtailed by the rigours of every procedural provision in the CPC. In exercise of its powers to grant interim relief under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act, the Court is not strictly bound by the provisions of the CPC.

The court observed that the Order 38 Rule 5 CPC contemplates a notice to the defendant to furnish security within a specified time, either to furnish security in such sum as may be specified in the order, to produce and place at the disposal of the Court, when required, the said property or value of the same, or such portion thereof as may be sufficient to satisfy the decree, or to appear and show cause why he should not furnish security.

It also noted that the Order 38 Rule 5 CPC does not debar the Court to pass ex parte order of attachment if the Court is of the opinion that there is a requirement of doing so as the defendant might dispose of the property in the interregnum. On attachment, the defendant can appear before the Court and show cause as to why attachment should be removed.

Allahabad High Court

[S.16 Arbitration Act] Jurisdiction Of Tribunal Cannot Be Challenged After Submission Of Defence: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: M/S. Arya Rice Mill v. State Of U.P. And 6 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 42 [WRIT - C No. - 41517 of 2024]

Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 42

The Allahabad High Court has held that as per Section 16(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the jurisdiction of an arbitral tribunal cannot be challenged after submission of defence and that the arbitral tribunal is empowered to adjudicate on its own jurisdiction.

The bench of Justice Siddhartha Varma and Dr. Justice Yogendra Kumar Srivastava held

“Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 provides for challenge to the jurisdictional authority of the Arbitral Tribunal. In terms of sub-section (2) thereof, a plea that the arbitral tribunal does not have jurisdiction should be raised not later than the submission of the defence. If the excess of jurisdiction crops up during the proceedings, the objection should be made at that very time. In any case, objection on the question of jurisdiction has to be made before the arbitral tribunal itself, and the arbitral tribunal has the power to rule on its own jurisdiction.”

Bombay High Court

Substantive Objections On Validity Or Existence Of Arbitration Agreement Can Be Adjudicated By Tribunal U/S 16 Of Act: Bombay HC

Case Title: Shreegopal Barasia Versus M/s. Creative Homes & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 17

The Bombay High Court bench of Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan has held that substantive objections concerning the validity and existence of an arbitration agreement can be adjudicated by the Arbitral Tribunal and not by the court under section 11 of the Arbitration Act.

It further added that towards such purpose of ruling on its own jurisdiction, and dealing with objections as to existence and validity, two specific sub-clauses have been inserted in Section 16(1) of the Act. The arbitration clause in a contract is treated as an independent agreement that is distinct from the other terms of the contract. Besides, a decision that the contract containing the arbitration clause is void, would not entail the legal outcome that the arbitration clause is invalid.

Serving Signed Copy Of Award To Employee Of Party Does Not Constitute Valid Service U/S 31(5) Of Arbitration Act: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Health Care, Medical & General Stores Versus Amulya Investment,Through Proprietor Mr. Sameer G. Narvekar

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 23

The Bombay High Court bench of Justices A.S. Chandurkar and Rajesh S. Patil has held that service of a signed copy of an award on an employee of a party to an arbitration agreement is not a valid service under section 31(5) of the Arbitration Act. The court at the outset noted that section 2(h) of the Arbitration Act defines the term party as a party to an arbitration agreement and referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Benarsi Krishna Committee & Ors. Vs. Karmyogi Shelters Pvt. Ltd.(2012) where it was held that a party under section 2(h) means only party to an arbitration agreement and not any agent or advocate acting on behalf of the party.

Court Cannot Assume Jurisdiction To Appoint Arbitrator Unless Request For Reference Of Dispute Is Received By Respondent: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Sri Sathe Infracon Private Limited v. M/s Rudranee Infrastructure Ltd. & another (ARBITRATION APPLICATION NO. 9 OF 2024)

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 36

The Bombay High Court bench of Justice R. M. Joshi has held that compliance with Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is mandatory and that the court cannot assume jurisdiction to appoint an Arbitrator under Section 11 unless a request for a reference of dispute is received by the respondent.

Here in this case, parties have agreed that before referring the dispute to arbitration, an amicable settlement must be attempted. In light of the agreement between parties, it is necessary to see whether there is compliance with this provision. Additionally, the court noted that it was specifically stated in the notice dated 28.03.2023 that the applicant had no intention of going into uncalled arbitration and had asked for an amicable settlement. It was also stated that if the date for amicable settlement is not communicated in 15 days, it shall be presumed that there is no possibility of settlement and in this situation, the Arbitrator came to be appointed. After this communication, there were settlement talks between the parties to resolve disputes between them amicably.

While Commercial Speech Falls Within Free Speech, Contract Prohibit Adverse Remarks: Bombay HC Imposes 90-Day Injunction On Wonderchef's Distributor

Case Title: Wonderchef Home Appliances Pvt. Ltd. vs Shree Swaminarayanan Pty Ltd. (Commercial Arbitration Petition 791 of 2024)

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 40

Observing that commercial speech is a part of 'free speech' guaranteed by the Constitution of India, the Bombay High Court imposed a 90-day injunction against an Australia-based distributor of Wonderchef Home Appliances, owned by Celebrity Chef Sanjeev Kapoor, from making any comments or communications which could harm the reputation of the company, due to a contractual clause preventing them from doing so.

Single-judge Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan while imposing the injunction, also ordered Wonderchef to invoke Arbitration proceedings under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

"It would be necessary for me to record that commercial speech is eminently part of free speech. It is not easy for a Court to prohibit a party from expressing itself about its grievances about a product acquired in the course of commerce, since the factors to be borne in mind when considering a request for a gag order, is to see if such expression is truthful and warranted. Merely because speech is made in a commercial context, it would not cease to have the ingredients of free expression," the judge said in the order passed on January 27.

Calcutta High Court

Section 8 Application Must Be Filed Before Or Simultaneously With Written Statement: Calcutta High Court

Case Title: Smt. Gitarani Maity -vs- 1A. Mrs. Krishna Chakraborty and others

Case Number: FAT No. 308 of 2023

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Justice Subhendu Samanta held that when no application for reference to arbitration under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act is made by either party, the civil court may very well entertain the suit and proceed with the adjudication of the same on merits in accordance with law.

Also, the court held that the Trial Judge committed a patent error of law on both counts: first, the suit could not have been dismissed under Section 8. And secondly, the Section 8 application, having not been filed before or even simultaneously with the written statement of the defendant, could not have been entertained at all by the trial Judge.

[Seat vs. Venue] Designated “Seat” Of Arbitration Has Exclusive Jurisdiction: Calcutta High Court Reiterates

Case Title: Versatile Construction vs. Tata Motors Finance Ltd.

Case Number: APOT/389/2024 with AP.COM/822/2024 IA No.: GA-COM/1/2024

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Biswaroop Chowdhury has held that once the “seat” of arbitration is designated in an agreement, it is to be treated as the exclusive jurisdiction for all arbitration proceedings. The Court referred to the 'Shashoua Principle', which propounds that when there is an express designation of a "venue" and no alternative seat is specified, the venue is considered the juridical seat of arbitration.

The court noted that the Supreme Court in Bharat Aluminium Company v Kaiser Aluminium Technical Services Inc. (BALCO) opined that the legislature had intentionally given jurisdiction to two courts i.e. the court which would have jurisdiction where the cause of action is located and courts where the arbitration takes place. This was necessary as the agreement may have provided for a seat of arbitration at a place which was neutral to both the parties.Power To Correct Computation Error U/S 33 Of Arbitration Act Can Be Exercised Suo Moto If No Application Is Filed Within 30 Days: Calcutta HC

Case Title: Haldia Development Authority Vs M/s. Konarak Enterprise

Case Number:AP-COM No.229 and 255 of 2024

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya has held that power to correct computation error in the award under section 33 of the Arbitration Act can be exercised suo moto by the Arbitral Tribunal when no application is filed to this effect within 30 days. The court at the outset rejected the contention with respect to claims barred by limitation on the ground that the final bill was prepared on May 18, 2016 based on which the claim was made on November 11, 2016 which was within the limitation period.

The court also noted that clause 3(a) of the contract allowed the forfeiture of security deposit only when the contract was rescinded but in the present case there was no material on record indicating that the contract was rescinded.

Calcutta High Court Directs South Eastern Railway To Refund Additional 20% Surcharge Levied On Consignment

Case Title: Indian Oil Corporation Vs. Union of India

Case Number: F.M.A.T. No. 237 of 2017

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Justice Uday Kumar has held that an impugned judgment passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Kolkata whereby the appellant's claim for refund of 20% surcharge was refused is erroneous in law and perverse.

Court said that the tribunal overlooked the obvious legal effect of the Circulars and Goods Tariff documents before it, which were the only documents which would have any bearing on the adjudication. Thus the court allowed the claim for relaxation regarding an additional 20% surcharge incorporated by the Circular.

[S.12A Commercial Courts Act] Pre-Institution Mediation Is Intended To Encourage Parties To Use Litigation As Last Resort: Calcutta HC

Case Title: Asa International India Microfinance Ltd. v. Northern ARC Capital Ltd. & Anr.

Case Number: FMAT 3 of 2025 with IA No. CAN 1 of 2025 CAN 2 of 2025

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Biswaroop Chowdhury has held that the clear intent of Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 is to encourage parties to use litigation as a last resort and to resolve commercial disputes amicably, informally, cheaply and quickly under the process of mediation. Additionally, the court modified the interim relief to the effect that upon the appellant making payment of Rs.2 crores and filing an affidavit of assets and schedule of payments respectively for other creditors. The appellant shall be permitted to utilize the rest of the amounts injuncted by the impugned order.

Chhattisgarh High Court

Additional Evidence Can Only Be Allowed In Exceptional Circumstances While Deciding Plea U/S 34 Of Arbitration Act: Chhattisgarh HC

Case Title: M/s Hira Carbonics Private Limited versus Kunwar Virendra Singh Patel and Anr.

Case Number: WP227 No. 8 of 2025

The Chhattisgarh High Court bench of Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey has held that additional evidence not forming part of the arbitral record can be allowed to be given only in exceptional circumstances while hearing a petition under section 34 of the Arbitration Act.

The court noted that in Alpine Housing Development Corporation Pvt. Ltd.(supra) the Supreme Court held that ordinarily additional documents which are not part of the arbitration record cannot be permitted to be given by the court hearing the application under section 34 of the Arbitration Act. The proceedings under section 34 are summary proceedings and if additional evidence are permitted, the purpose of speedily disposing of the petition would be defeated.

Delhi High Court

No Bar To Avail Remedy U/S 9 Of Arbitration Act Even Against Non-Parties To Subject Matter Of Dispute: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna has held that the Plaintiffs are not barred from availing the remedy under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 even against individual(s)/entities who are not party to the Family Settlement out of which the dispute arose.

The application for ad interim injunction was held to be not maintainable due to pending Arbitration proceedings in regard to the Family Settlement and a pending Application under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act.

The court noted that the Application under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act is yet to be adjudicated. It noted that the cause of action reflected that there was no immediate urgency. The issue of whether the suit was only maintainable under the Companies Act before the NCLT was also raised.

Date Of Receipt Of Corrected Award Would Be Taken As Disposal Date U/S 34(3) Of Arbitration Act, Even When Application U/S 33 Has Been Filed: Delhi HC

Case Title: TEFCIL BREWERIES LIMITED v. ALFA LAVAL (INDIA) LIMITED

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 18

The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad has held that taking the date of receipt of the corrected award as the starting point and not as the date of disposal would actually go contrary to the plain reading of Section 34(3) of the Act. This will apply even in cases where an application under Section 33 of the Act has been filed.

The court held that the provisions of Section 34(3) of the Act give two timelines. One, where an application under Section 33 of the Act has not been filed in which case the legislature was conscious enough to state that it would be the date of receipt of the award. Whereas, in the case where an application under Section 33 of the Act has been filed, the legislation was conscious enough to lay down that the date of disposal would be the starting point for calculation of limitation.

Expert Tribunal's Award Did Not Suffer From Patent Illegality, Cannot Be Set Aside U/S 34 Of Arbitration Act: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Center For Research Planning And Action v. National Medicinal Plants Board Ministry Of Ayush Government Of India

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 42

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Dharmesh Sharma has held that the scope of interference by the Court with the arbitral award under Section 34 is very limited, and the Court is not supposed to travel beyond the aforesaid scope to determine whether the award is good or bad.

In the present case, the court held that the expert tribunals award did not suffer from patent illegality, and thus could not be set aside under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act.

Arbitral Award Cannot Be Challenged In Writ Petition, Party Must Use Remedy U/S 34 Of Arbitration Act: Delhi High Court

Case Title: MAHANAGAR TELEPHONE NIGAM LTD v. MICRO AND SMALL ENTERPRISE FACILITATION COUNCIL AND OTHERS

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 44

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Sachin Datta has held that it cannot entertain a writ petition challenging an arbitral award, and the petitioner should challenge the award by taking recourse to appropriate remedies under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act.

The court observed it is impermissible for the petitioner to agitate these issues in the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The impugned award having been rendered by the sole arbitrator, and the objections as regards (lack of) jurisdiction having been rejected by the sole arbitrator, the appropriate remedy for the petitioner is to assail the same by taking recourse to the remedies under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Arbitrator's Order Determining Substantive Rights Of Parties Constitutes “Award”, Amenable To Challenge U/S 34 Of Arbitration Act: Delhi HC

Case Title: Aptec Advanced Protective Technologies AG vs. Union of India

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 48

The Delhi High Court division bench of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Shalinder Kaur has held that orders passed by the Arbitrator during the pendency of Arbitral proceedings, which finally determines any substantive rights of the parties, constitutes an interim Arbitral Award, and can be challenged under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

At the outset, the court noted that the A&C Act does not define “interim award”. The court referred to IFFCO Ltd. v. Bhadra Products which held that the Arbitral Tribunal can make an interim arbitral Award on any matter with respect to which it may make a final Award; and the term “matter” in Section 31(6) of the A&C Act includes any point of dispute between the parties which has to be answered by the Arbitral Tribunal. The Supreme court had held that while the arbitration proceedings can be terminated only by way of a final Award, there can be one or more interim Awards before the final Award, which conclusively and finally determine some of the issues between the parties, finally leading upto the final Award.

Section 13 Of Commercial Courts Act Doesn't Provide Any Independent Right To Appeal In Arbitration Matters: Delhi High Court Reiterates

Case Title: Synergies Casting Ltd. vs. National Research Development Corporation & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 64

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Shalinder Kaur has held that an order which neither sets aside nor refuses to set aside the arbitral award, does not fall under the ambit of Section 37(1)(c) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act and is not appealable.

The court observed that appeals in arbitration matters are maintainable only if expressly provided for in section 37/ 50 of the A&C Act. Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 does not confer an independent right to appeal.

Referral Courts At Post-Award Stage Must Protect Parties From Being Forced To Arbitrate Non-Arbitrable Claims: Delhi High Court

Case Title: M/s Jaiprakash Associates Limited v. M/s NHPC Limited

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 66

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad, while refusing to appoint an arbitrator in a Section 11 petition, has held that the referral court in a post-award stage must protect the parties from being forced to arbitrate when, after prime facie scrutiny of the facts the claims are found to be non-arbitrable. The court applied the 'eye of the needle' test, which allows the referral court to reject arbitration in exceptional circumstances where the claims are deadwood.

Issue Related To Existence Of Arbitration Agreement Cannot Be Decided Ex-Parte, Without Hearing Respondent: Delhi High Court

Case Title: WTC NOIDA DEVELOPMENT COMPANY PVT. LTD V. MS. ARTI KHATTAR & ORS.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 83

A Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Shalinder Kaur held that the District Judge should not have decided the issue related to the existence of an arbitration agreement ex-parte, without calling upon the respondent to give its stand on the same.

The court observed that the arbitration agreement, by virtue of the presumption of separability, survives the principal contract in which it was contained. The Arbitration Agreement forming part of a contract is treated as an agreement independent of other terms of the contract. The question of whether the underlying agreement stands discharged itself may be a dispute arising out of or in relation to or under the substantive contract and would not be precluded from reference to arbitration.

[Arbitration Act] Application U/S 34 Without Award Copy Or Vakalatnama Is Merely A 'Stack Of Papers' Filed To Save Limitation: Delhi HC

Case Title: KGF COTTONS PVT LTD v. HALDIRAM SNACKS PVT LTD

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 94

The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad has held that a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, filed without the award itself, would not be a valid filing.

Justice Prasad stated that without the Award, the challenge would become meaningless because unless the award is perused by the court, it cannot adjudicate upon the appropriateness and correctness of the award. An application under Section 34 of the Act, filed without an award and admittedly without a vakalatmana, can only be a stack of papers filed only to save the limitation, he said.

When Counter-Claim Is Related To Primary Dispute, It Can Be Filed Before Tribunal U/S 23 Of Arbitration Act: Delhi High Court

Case Title: M/S. Akn Developers Private Limited v. M/S. Premsons Southend

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 96

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Manoj Jain has held that while any counter-claim may relate to a different cause of action, it can still stem from a primary dispute between the parties. Thus, the court held that the governing factor would be to see whether it has any connection with the original dispute or is isolated and separable. For all purposes, the court observed that the counter-claim in this case was, directly or indirectly, related to the primary dispute between the parties and the claim in question. Additionally, the court held that if there is a strong interconnectivity or linkage between the two i.e. claim and counter-claim, these can be assumed to be a part of the same transaction.

Appointment Of Arbitrator In International Commercial Arbitration By HC Does Not Vitiate Award: Delhi High Court

Case Title: HALA KAMEL ZABAL versus ARYA TRADING LTD. & ORS.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 102

The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar has held that the appointment of the Arbitrator in an International Commercial Arbitration (“ICA”) by the Chief Justice of the High Court, does not vitiate the impugned award.The bench held that the objection to the appointment of the arbitrator should have been raised during the arbitration proceedings. Since the parties failed to do so, they were deemed to have waived their right to object.

The examination of the impugned award hinges on whether the award is vitiated due to the alleged illegality in the appointment of the arbitrator, particularly concerning Issue (3), which would only be pertinent if the award is already compromised due to such illegality. Regarding Issue (1), the appointment of the arbitrator, it was determined that it was not in accordance with the 1996 Act, as Section 11(6) clearly mandates that in the case of an ICA, the arbitrator must be appointed by the Supreme Court. However, in this instance, the appointment was made by the Chief Justice of the High Court, rendering the appointment technically flawed.

Gauhati High Court

Mere Existence Of Arbitration Clause In Agreement Does Not Oust Jurisdiction Of Civil Court To Entertain Suit: Gauhati High Court

Case Title: M/S J.M.B. CONSTRUCTION AND 2 ORS. VERSUS DR. SOMESH DHAR AND 3 ORS.

Case Number:Arb.A./8/2024

The Gauhati High Court bench of Justice Malasri Nandi has held that merely because there is an arbitration clause providing for referring the dispute and the claim to the arbitration, the civil court's jurisdiction is not barred but the same is subject to Section 8 of the Arbitration Act, 1996.

The court noted that in S.Vanathan Muthuraja vs. Ramalingam @ Krishnamurthy Gurukkal & Ors., (1997) the Supreme Court held that when a legal right is infringed, a civil suit would lie unless entertainment of such suit is specifically barred. The normal rule is that a civil court would have jurisdiction to entertain all suits of a civil nature except those whose cognizance is either explicitly or by implication is barred. It also relied on the Supreme Court judgment in ITI Ltd. vs. Siemens Public Communications Network Ltd., (2002) where it was held that application of the code is not specifically prohibited when it comes to proceedings arising out of the Act before the court.

Gujarat High Court

Court's Jurisdiction U/S 34 Of Arbitration Act Against Award Under MSMED Act Is Determined By Agreement Between Parties: Gujarat HC

Case Title: UTTAR GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LIMITED Versus GUPTA POWER INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED

Case Number: R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1728 of 2022 With CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2022 In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1728 of 2022

The Gujarat High Court bench of Mrs. Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Mr.Justice Pranav Trivedi of has held that the jurisdiction of the Court to hear the application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act' 1996 as to challenge the award passed under Section 18(4) of the MSMED Act' 2006, would be governed by the agreement between the parties which has conferred exclusive jurisdiction to a particular Court.

The court at the outset while noting the interplay between the MSMED Act and the Arbitration Act observed that the overriding effect has been given by virtue of Section 18(4) read with Section 24 of the MSMED Act' 2006 over any agreement between the parties in relation to the dispute covered by the MSMED Act' 2006 and in so far as the claim under Section 17, where it has been kept open to the parties to refer the dispute to the MSME Facilitation Council. It further added that by virtue of Section 2(4) read with Section 7, in so far as the arbitration proceedings are concerned, they shall be governed by the statutory enactment, which would result in replacing the mode and manner of appointment of arbitral tribunal under the Arbitration Act' 1996. The provisions of the Arbitration Act' 1996 which are inconsistent with the statutory enactment shall not apply.

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Award Passed On Consent Cannot Be Held To Be Patently Illegal Or Contrary To Public Policy: Himachal Pradesh HC

Case Title: The Executive Engineer, I & PH Division, Bilaspur Versus Ramesh Khaneja

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 1

The Himachal Pradesh High Court bench of Justices Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Satyen Vaidya held that the award being primarily based on consent cannot also be held to be patently illegal or in conflict with the public policy of India.

High Court Which Appointed Arbitrator U/S 11(6) Of Arbitration Act Cannot Be Classified As “Court” U/S 42: Himachal Pradesh HC

Case Title: The Chief General Manager H.P. Telecom Circle & ors. Versus Sh. Kashmir Singh (Government Contractor)

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 2

The Himachal High Court bench of Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua has held that the High Court which exercises original civil jurisdiction cannot be classified as 'Court' for the purpose of Section 42 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act when it merely appointed arbitrators under Section 11(6) of the Act. Section 42 of the Act will not be attracted where High Court having original civil jurisdiction has only appointed the arbitrator and has not undertaken any other exercise.

The court observed that Section 42 starts with a non-obstante clause i.e. 'notwithstanding anything contained elsewhere in this Part or in any other law for the time being in force'. The words 'this Part' refers to Part-I which encompasses Sections 1 – 43. As per Section 42, where an application with respect to an arbitration agreement under Part-I has been made to a Court then that Court alone will have the jurisdiction over (a) arbitral proceedings & (b) all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and the arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court.

Application For Extension Of Time Cannot Be Dismissed Due To Mentioning S.151 Of CPC Instead Of S. 29A Of Arbitration Act: Himachal Pradesh HC

Case Title: Mangal Chand and ors vs. LAC NHAI and ors.

Case Number:Arb. Case No. 799 of 2023

The Himachal Pradesh High Court bench of Justice Rakesh Kainthla has held that it is well-settled law that mere mentioning of an incorrect provision is not fatal to the application if the power to pass such an order is available with the court.

The court noted that a specific section in the form of section 29A exists in the Arbitration Act for the same purpose for which this application has been filed.

In My Palace Mutually Aided Coop. Society v. B. Mahesh, 2022 the Supreme Court held that “Section 151 of the CPC can only be applicable if there is no alternate remedy available in accordance with the existing provisions of law. Such inherent power cannot override statutory prohibitions or create remedies which are not contemplated under the Code.”

Based on the above, the court observed that the application under Section 151 CPC would not be maintainable when specific provision under Section 29 A (4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act exists to extend the time.

Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court

Irregularity & Curable Defect Cannot Be Grounds For Dismissal Of Application U/S 34 Of Arbitration Act: J&K High Court

Case Title: Union of India v. M/s Des Raj Nagpal Engineers & Contractors

Case Number: Arb App No.1/2022

The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court bench of Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Puneet Gupta has held that the failure of the Chief Engineer to sign the pleadings, which were signed by the Garrison Engineer would only be an irregularity and a curable defect and would not entail dismissal of the application filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act without providing opportunity to the appellants to correct the irregularity.

The court noted that Order XXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure deals with suits by or against the Government. Rule 1 provides that in any suit by or against the Government, the plaint or written statement shall be signed by such person as the Government may by general or special order appoint in this behalf. The Government of India has, in the exercise of powers conferred by Rule 1 of Order XXVII aforesaid, issued notification authorizing different officers to sign the pleadings on behalf of Government of India in any suit by or against the Government. The Garrison Engineer is one of those officers. That being the clear position emerging from reading of the provisions of Article 299 of the Constitution of India and, it cannot be said that the Garrison Engineer was not an officer authorized to sign pleadings on behalf of the Government of India.

Jharkhand High Court

Arbitral Tribunal Not Bound By Strict Rigors Of CPC, Amendment Permissible At Any Stage Of Proceedings: Jharkhand High Court

Case Title: Rites Ltd v. M/s Supreme BKB DECO JV

Case Number: W. P. (C) No. 311 of 2025

The Jharkhand High Court Bench of Justice Gautam Kumar Choudhary has held that the power under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution can be invoked for interfering with an interim order only in exceptionally rare cases. Additionally, the court held that Arbitral Tribunals are not bound by the strict rigours of CPC and an amendment is permissible at any stage of the proceedings for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties.

The court relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in Serosoft Solutions Private Ltd. Vs. Dexter Capital Advisors Pvt. Ltd. (2022), wherein the court held that the power under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution can be invoked for interfering with an interim order only in exceptional rarity. Nevertheless, power exists and in exceptional circumstances, the said power can be invoked. However, an aperture and avenue for interference is a limited one.

Karnataka High Court

Double Payment For Same Claim Violates Public Policy U/S 34 Of Arbitration Act: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE v. M/S ASHOKA BIOGREEN PVT. LTD.

Case Number: COMMERCIAL APPEAL No. 427 OF 2024

The Karnataka High Court Bench of Chief Justice N. V. Anjaria and Justice K. V. Aravind held that the issue of double payment for the same claim would undoubtedly be in direct conflict with the Public Policy of India and would violate the Fundamental Policy of Indian Law, as well as the basic principles of morality and justice.

The court relied on the judgment in MMTC Limited Vs. Vedanta Limited (2019), wherein the court held that jurisdiction under Section 37 of the Act is akin to the jurisdiction of the Court under Section 34 of the Act. While entertaining an appeal under Section 37 of the Act, the interference is restricted and subject to the grounds enumerated in Section 34 of the Act.

Kerala High Court

'Arbitrator Can Only Decide On Point Which Is Referred To Tribunal, Not Entire Dispute': Kerala High CourtCase Title: M/S.BHAGEERATHA ENGINEERING LTD. V. STATE OF KERALA

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 41

The Kerala High Court Bench of Justice Dr A. K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Easwaran S. held that if the parties choose to refer to a singular point for arbitration, then the arbitral tribunal cannot proceed to decide on all disputes. On the contrary, if the parties agree to arbitrate on the entire disputes, then the arbitral tribunal shall have jurisdiction to decide the entire dispute and not a specific dispute.

The court noted that clause (b) of Section 28 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, reveals that any agreement which extinguishes a right of a party in respect of a contract on expiry of a specified period to restrict the other party from enforcing the right, is void to that extent. Therefore, ex-facie Clause 25.2 of the Contract offends the provisions of Section 28(b) of the Contract Act, 1872. Additionally, the court relied on the judgment in Grasim Industries Ltd. v. State of Kerala (2018) and held that clause 25.2 provided in the agreement is void and cannot operate as a restraint for the initiation of the dispute between the parties.

Notice To Appoint Another Arbitrator To Continue Arbitration Proceedings Satisfies Mandate Of S.21Of A&C Act: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Unnimoidu v. Muhammad Iqbal

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 67

The Kerala High Court bench of Justice Syam Kumar V.M., while hearing a Section 11 petition, has held that a notice to revive a stalled arbitration proceedings by appointing another arbitrator satisfies the mandate of Section 21 of the A&C Act.

The court observed that the questions relating to the validity of the partnership agreement cannot be looked into by a referral court. The Supreme Court in SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Krish Spinning (2024) has limited the scope of the referral court to ascertain whether a Section 11 application has been filed within three years. The court cannot go into the arbitrability of the dispute, and such questions are for the tribunal to adjudicate.

Writ Petition Maintainable If Arbitrator Refuses To Entertain Application U/S 3G(5) Of National Highways Act: Kerala High Court

Case Title: P.V. George v. National Highway Authority of India And Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 70

The Kerala High Court bench of A. Muhamed Mustaque and S. Manu JJ. while hearing a writ petition has held that when an arbitrator appointed by the Central Government refuses to entertain an application u/s 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956, the Courts can entertain a petition under Article 226 to the limited extent of referring the dispute to arbitration.

Court noted that the arbitral proceedings commenced on the date on which a Section 21 notice requesting the dispute to be referred to arbitration was received by the respondent. Any decision made prior to the commencement of the proceedings cannot be treated as an award. The definition of decree under the Code of Civil Procedure provides guidance to the types of decisions that can be qualified as an award.

Section 3G(5) places a statutory obligation upon the District Collector, who acts as an arbitrator, to receive applications for adjudication of disputes relating to the determination of compensation.

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Arbitrator Empowered To Pass Order For Dissolution Of Partnership Firm Once Dispute Is Referred: Madhya Pradesh HC

Case Title: MAHESH PATEL Vs YASHWANT NETRAM AND OTHERS

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (MP) 8

The Madhya Pradesh High Court bench of Justice Subodh Abhyankar has held that the Arbitrator is empowered to pass an order for dissolution of the partnership firm once the matter is referred.

The court observed that the grievance of the applicant is that the firm is being managed by Ashok Patel, who happens to be the father of non-applicant No.3, it is a grievance against the non-applicants only, which is also apparent from the notice for appointment of Arbitrator, in which the dispute has been raised against the present non-applicants only and not against Ashok Patel, and in such circumstances, the said Ashok Patel was not a necessary party to be impleaded in the lis, and thus, there is no question of bifurcation of dispute, hence, the decisions relied upon by Shri Phadke in the case of Sukanya Holdings Pvt. Ltd. (supra) would not be applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case.Matter Relating To Partnership Act & Partnership Deed Where Third-Party Rights Are Involved Cannot Be Referred To Arbitration: Madhya Pradesh HC

Case Title: GOKUL BANSAL Vs. VIPIN GOYAL & ORS.

Case Number: ARBITRATION CASE NO. 44 of 2021

The Madhya Pradesh High Court bench of Justice Anand Pathak held that when matter relates to Partnership Act and partnership deed and third-party rights are also involved then it cannot be referred to arbitration.

The court held that the relief of partition of subject property as sought by the applicant during subsistence of partnership firm is barred by law. Therefore, the matter is non-arbitrable. Additionally, the court noted that scope of enquiry having the trappings of adjudication is limited at the stage of application under Section 11 of the Act, but the Court can certainly determine existence of arbitration agreement and also to enquire whether there is prima facie arbitration dispute or not.

Madras High Court

Award Passed After Inordinate And Unexplained Delay Can Be Set Aside U/S 34 Of Arbitration Act: Madras High Court

Case Title: M/s. Unique Builders Vs The Union of India

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 17

The Madras High Court bench of Justice P.B. Balaji has held that inordinate and unexplained delay in passing the arbitral award can be a ground to set it aside under section 34 of the Arbitration Act.

The primary question before the court was whether an arbitral award can be set aside on the ground that a significant time was taken by the Arbitrator in passing the award. The court noted that in Harji Engineering Works Private Limited v. Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited, (2009) the Delhi High Court while referring to the UNCITRAL guide held that arbitration aims to provide speedy justice and a substantial delay in passing the award would lead to the Arbitrator forgetting the crucial facts. An unexplained delay in passing the award could render the award contrary to public policy.

Orissa High Court

Violation Of Provisions Of Arbitration Act Or MSMED Act Can Be Adjudicated By Court U/S 34 Of Arbitration Act: Orissa High Court

Case Title: Rajdhani Coir V. Micro, Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, Nagpur, Maharashtra

Case Number: W.P.(C) No.22514 of 2022

An Orissa High Court bench of Justice K.R. Mohapatra has dismissed a writ petition upon holding that the petitioner, without availing the efficacious statutory remedy u/s 34 of the Arbitration Act had approached the Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution for which the Court was not inclined to exercise its discretionary power to entertain it.

Additionally, the court held that violation of any provisions of the Arbitration Act and/or the MSMED Act can be effectively adjudicated by the competent Court in an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act read with Section 19 of the MSMED Act.

Appeal In Commercial Dispute Arising From Arbitration Act Must Be Filed Before Commercial Appellate Court, Not HC: Orissa High Court

Case Title: M/s. Jaycee Housing Private v. Neelachal Buildtech & Resorts Pvt.

Case Number: ARBA No.7 of 2024

The Orissa High Court bench of Justice S.K. Panigrahi has held that a plain reading of Sections 6 and 10(3) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, leads to the conclusion that the appropriate 'court' to consider a commercial dispute, even if it arises under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, would be the commercial court and an appeal would, therefore, lie only before the Commercial Appellate Court being the District Court.

Patna High Court

Unilateral Appointment Clause Of Arbitrator Hinders Equal Participation Of Parties In Appointment Process: Patna High Court

Case Title: M/s R.S. Contruction Versus Building Construction Department

Case Number: REQUEST CASE No.105 of 2024

The Patna High Court Bench of Chief Justice K. Vinod Chandran held that a clause that allows one party to unilaterally appoint a sole arbitrator gives rise to justifiable doubts as to the independence and impartiality of the arbitrator. Further, such a unilateral clause is exclusive and hinders equal participation of the parties in the appointment process of arbitrators.

The court relied on the judgment in Central Organisation for Railway Electrification v. M/s ECI SPIC SMO MCML (JV) A Joint Venture Company (2019) and held that a clause that allows one party to unilaterally appoint a sole arbitrator gives rise to justifiable doubts as to the independence and impartiality of the arbitrator. Further, such a unilateral clause is exclusive and hinders equal participation of the parties in the appointment process of arbitrators. Finally, the court rejected the request case.

Procedural Impediments In Govt Machinery Not 'Sufficient Cause' For Condoning Delay In Filing Appeal U/S 37 Of Arbitration Act: Patna High Court

Case Title: The State of Bihar V. M/s Baba Hans Construction Pvt. Ltd.

Case Number: Miscellaneous Appeal No.679 of 2023

The Patna High Court Bench of Justice Ramesh Chand Malviya has held that procedural impediments in the government machinery are not a 'sufficient cause' for condoning the delay in filing the appeal.

The court observed that the discretion to condone the delay has to be exercised judiciously based on the facts and circumstances of each case and that, the expression 'sufficient cause' cannot be liberally interpreted, if based on the facts of the case it is evident that there has been negligence, inaction or lack of bonafides on the part of the petitioner. The term 'sufficient cause' means that the party should not have acted in a negligent manner or there was a want of bonafide on the part of the petitioner in view of the facts and circumstances of the case.

Punjab and Haryana High Court

Pendency Of Civil Or Criminal Litigation Between Partners Cannot Estop Either Partner From Invoking Arbitration Clause: Punjab and Haryana HC

Case Title: PRIKSHIT WADHWA AND ORS VERSUS VINOD K WADHWA

Case Number:ARB-241-2022 (O&M)

The Punjab and Haryana High Court bench of Justice Suvir Sehgal has held that pendency of a civil and criminal litigation inter se partners, cannot estop one of the partners from invoking the arbitration clause or bar the reference of dispute for adjudication to an arbitrator for determination.

The court after referring to section 21 of the Arbitration Act observed that the provision has been incorporated primarily with the objective of determining the date of the commencement of the arbitral proceedings. The proceedings are deemed to have been initiated from the date the notice invoking the arbitration clause “is received by the respondent”. While coming to the facts of the present case, the court said that the clause does not require the notice to be served by all the parties to the agreement. Notice by one of the parties to the agreement would be a sufficient compliance of the statutory provision. The giving of such a notice is purely procedural and not a decisive step.
Appeal U/S 37 Of Arbitration Act Not Maintainable Against Order Under O.VII R.10 CPC: Punjab And Haryana High Court

Case Title: Parsvnath Developers Limited vs. Brig. Devendra Singh Yadav and others

Case Number: FAO-CARB-28-2022(O&M)

The Punjab and Haryana High Court bench comprising of Justice Arun Palli and Justice Vikram Aggarwal has held that an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Act read with Section 13(1) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 is not maintainable against an order passed under Order VII Rule 10 of the CPC directing the return of a petition filed under Section 34 of the 1996 Act for presentation to the appropriate court.

Rajasthan High Court

Commercial Court Committed Jurisdictional Error By Imposing Pre-Condition To Deposit 50% Of Amount For Stay Against Arbitral Award: Rajasthan HC

Case Title: Jaipur Development Authority v. TPl-Sucg Consortium

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 20

The Rajasthan High Court bench of Justice Sudesh Bansal has held that the Commercial Court has committed jurisdictional error in exercising its discretion arbitrarily, mechanically and injudiciously, while putting the condition to deposit 50% of the awarded amount, for operating stay against arbitral award without assigned justified and sound reasonings.

Additionally, the court modified the order in the manner that the stay order will become operative only after furnishing security in the form of FDR of a nationalised bank, equivalent to the 50% of the awarded amount, before the Commercial Court.

Uttarakhand High Court

Concept Of Appointing Named Arbitrator Who Is An Interested Party Is No Longer Sustainable: Uttarakhand High Court

Case Title: M/s SPDD VDPPL JV and another v. State of Uttarakhand and others

Case Number: ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 78 OF 2023

The Uttarakhand High Court bench of Chief Justice G. Narendar has held that the concept of appointing a named Arbitrator, who himself is an interested party, is no longer sustainable. The court relied on the judgment in Perkins Eastman Architects DPC and another vs. HSCC (India) Limited (2020) and held that in the light of the law declared by the Apex Court, the concept of named Arbitrator, who himself is an interested party, is no more sustainable. Thus, the court allowed the application and appointed an arbitrator.