Andra Pradesh High Court:

Limitation For Appointment Of Arbitrator Commences From Date Of Failure To Comply With Requirements In Notice Invoking Arbitration: AP High Court

Case Title: Alliance Enterprises v. Andhra Pradesh State Fiber Net Limited (APSFL)

Case Number: Arbitration Application No. 48 of 2023

The Andhra Pradesh High Court bench of Chief Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur has held that the limitation period for filing an application seeking appointment of arbitrator under Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, commences only after a notice invoking arbitration has been issued by one of the parties and there has been either a failure or refusal on the part of the opposite party to make an appointment as per the procedure agreed upon between the parties. The Court referred to the judgment of the Apex Court in Arif Azim Co. Ltd. v. Aptech Ltd. wherein the court had observed that the “limitation period for making an application seeking appointment of arbitrator must not be conflated with the limitation period for raising the substantive claims which are sought to be referred to an arbitral tribunal.”

Applying the law laid down in these precedents to the facts of the present case, the Court observed that the notice invoking arbitration clause was issued by the Applicant only on 17.10.2022. Assuming that three years were to be calculated from the said date itself, the present application which was filed on 31.08.2023 was well within the period of limitation of three years as prescribed by Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

Named Arbitrator Cannot Be Replaced Unless There Is Evidence Of Partiality Or Bias Against Them: Andhra Pradesh HC

Case Title: M/s. Kranthi Grand DKNV Hospitalities and another Vs. M/s. Manasa Estates and Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. and 2 others

Case Number:ARBITRATION APPLICATION NO: 62 of 2023

The Andhra Pradesh High Court bench of Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur has held that the request for seeking appointment of an independent arbitrator other than the named arbitrator cannot be entertained if there is no evidence to show that the named arbitrator would act in a partial or biased manner. The court observed that the explanation given by the applicant as to why the arbitrator other than the nominated arbitrator is required to be appointed is very casual. No reasons have been furnished whether the named arbitrator falls any of the ineligibilities prescribed under section 12(5) of the Arbitration Act.

The Supreme Court in Indian Oil Corporation Limited and others vs. Raja Transport Private Limited (2009) held that the appointment of the named arbitrator in the agreement is a rule and appointment of the arbitrator other than the named arbitrator should be treated as an exception.

Calcutta High Court:

Calcutta High Court Upholds Arbitral Award Directing KMDA To Refund Amount Deposited By South City Projects Under MoU

Case Title: KOLKATA METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS. SOUTH CITY PROJECTS (KOLKATA) & ANR.

Case Number: APO/205/2023 WITH AP/351/2020 IA No. GA/1/2023

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justices Harish Tandon and Madhuresh Prasad has held that findings of the Arbitrator based material cannot be interfered with within the limited scope of proceedings under section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act).

The court noted that as per Article XX the remedy of requiring the defaulting shareholder to sell its shares to the non-defaulting shareholder is not absolute and is without prejudice to other rights. Article XX does not contain a clause ousting remedies legally available otherwise to the parties. This aspect of the matter has been considered by the arbitrator and decided against the appellant. It further added that the submission that there was no obligation on the KMDA to create any right or obligation in favour of the claimants in respect of the immovable property was rightly rejected. It further noted that a factual finding had been recorded based on his evidence that without encroachments being removed the development of even the reduced lands measuring 83.52 Kottahs of land was not possible.[Arbitration Act] Referral Courts Can't Indulge In Enquiry Into Whether Claims Are Time-Barred: Calcutta High Court

Case Title: Kalpataru Projects International Limited vs. Bharat Heavy Electrical Limited (BHEL)

Case Number: AP-COM/94/2025

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar has held that in an application under section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, it would not be proper for the referral court to indulge in an intricate evidentiary enquiry into the question of whether the claims raised by the petitioner were time-barred or not.

“Courts, at the referral stage, can interfere only when it is manifest that the claims are expressly time barred and dead or when there are no subsisting disputes. In all other cases, the matter should be referred to the arbitral tribunal for decision on merits.”, the court observed.

The court referred to the decision in 'Aslam Isamil Khan Deshmukh vs. ASAP Fluids Private Limited and anr.' which clarified that the referral court must only conduct a limited enquiry to examine whether the application under section 11(6) had been filed within three years or not.

Delhi High Court:

Delhi High Court Re-Affirms Discretion Of Arbitral Tribunal To Implead 'Non-Signatory' As 'Necessary Party' In Arbitration Proceedings

Case Title: Dixon Technologies (India) Limited vs. M/s Jaiico & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 194

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad has reaffirmed that an Arbitral Tribunal has the authority to implead non-signatories to an arbitration, provided they are deemed 'necessary parties' to the proceedings.

The court was hearing an application u/s. 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act for the appointment of Arbitrator to adjudicate disputes arising under a Standard Transportation agreement and Customs Clearing Agent agreement. The petitioner had impleaded Respondent no.2, a non-signatory to the agreements.

Violates Public Trust Doctrine: Delhi HC Sets Aside Tribunal's Award Allowing RIL To Explore 'Migrated Gas' Without Express Permission

Case Title: Union of India v. Reliance Industries Limited & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 202

A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, comprising of Justice Rekha Palli and Justice Saurabh Banerjee, while hearing an appeal under Section 37 of the A&C Act, set aside an arbitral award in favour of Reliance Industries Limited(RIL). The Court invoked the doctrine of 'public policy in India', 'public law' and 'Public Trust Doctrine' and observed that the findings of the Arbitral Tribunal (AT) which held that the RIL's breach of Production Sharing Contract (PSC) was not a material breach of the PSC and 1959 PNG Rules, was in violation of fundamental law of India and the award was patently erroneous.

The Court observed that the issue of 'patent illegality' involves Article 297 of the Constitution, and 'public policy in India', 'public law' and 'Public Trust Doctrine', being all intertwined, are to be considered. By Article 297 of the Constitution, UOI is a depository holding the natural resources of India as a Trustee, and without the explicit and express permission of the UOI, there can be no extraction of the said resources by anyone. The findings of AT pertaining to the implicit permission of the UOI of the 'migrated gas' require consideration. The UOI entered into a PSC with RIL since RIL had the 'technical know-how.' RIL was appointed for a specific and limited purpose of exploring/extracting the natural resources for and on behalf of the UOI.

Failure To Attach Impugned Arbitral Award Along With Section 34 Application Would Render Filing Non-Est: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Pragati Construction Consultants v. Union of India and Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 210

A full bench of Delhi High Court comprising of Justice Rekha Palli, Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Saurabh Banerjee while hearing a reference made by a single judge bench in Pragati Construction Consultants v. Union of India [FAO(OS)(COMM) 70/2024] held that if the party challenging an award u/s 34 of the A&C Act does not attach the impugned arbitral award with the Section 34 application, the filing will be considered "non-est." The Court further held that the filing of the arbitral award along with the Section 34 application is an essential requirement.

The bench observed that the arbitral award can be set aside by the Court u/s 34(2)(a) of the A&C Act, if the applicant establishes on the basis of the record of the arbitral tribunal that any of the grounds mentioned in the said section were violated during arbitral proceedings. An award can also be set aside u/s 34(2)(b) of the A&C Act, if the subject matter of the dispute was not capable of being settled by arbitration, or if the award was in conflict with the public policy. Furthermore, an award arising out of arbitrations other than international commercial arbitrations, may also be set aside by the Court u/s 34(2A) of the A&C Act, if the award is vitiated by patent illegality appearing on the face of the award. It would be impossible to satisfy the conditions given u/s 34 of the A&C Act, if the arbitral award is not placed on record.Delhi High Court Dismisses Challenge Against Arbitral Award Rejecting Counterclaim For Failure To Raise Timely Objections On Quality Of Goods

Case Name: Unison Hotels Pvt Ltd v. KNM Chemicals Pvt Ltd

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 219

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri has upheld an Arbitral award stating that objections regarding the quality of goods must be raised within a reasonable time as per section 42 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930. The court concurred with the decision of the Arbitral Tribunal that since the Petitioner failed to dispute the quality of supplies within a reasonable time, its counterclaims were rightly dismissed.

The court noted that the Arbitral Tribunal observed that the petitioner ought to have aired its objections with regard to the quality of the goods within 15 days of receipt of the same. As per the admitted case of the parties, the goods were last supplied on 12.06.2019; however, the objections for the first time were put on record after nearly four and a half months.

Gujarat High Court:

Plea That Signed Copy Of Award Was Not Received Cannot Be Raised For First Time In Appeal U/S 37 Of Arbitration Act: Gujarat High Court

Case Title: NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA Versus KISHORBHAI VALJIBHAI JETHANI & ORS.

Case Number: C/FA/4705/2023

The Gujarat High Court bench of Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Pranav Trivedi has held that the plea that limitation period for challenging the award under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) did not start as the signed copy of the award was not received by the party, cannot be raised for the first time in appeal under section 37 of the Arbitration Act.

It fwas urther observed that if the applicant/ NHAI was aware of the fact that the provisions of Section 31(5) had not been complied with and signed copy of the award had not been delivered to the NHAI, it was required to make the said plea before the Court by making a declaration of the fact about the non-delivery or improper delivery of the award in the application under Section 34, itself.