Arbitration Law News and Expert Insights

Arbitration

Filing One Arbitration Plea Doesn’t Fix Jurisdiction Forever, Clarifies Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court held that mere filing of an earlier arbitration-related plea does not confer jurisdiction for subsequent applications under Section 42 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, especially when the earlier plea was withdrawn without adjudication.

The Court emphasised that jurisdiction must be real and legally sustainable, not created artificially through procedural filings.

Rejecting a plea for extension of an arbitrator’s mandate, it held that the agreement conferred exclusive jurisdiction on Ranchi courts, and prior proceedings in Delhi could not override this.

It also cautioned against attempts at forum shopping through strategic filings.

[SP Singla Constructions Pvt Ltd v. State of Jharkhand & Anr.]

Read Judgement / 2 days ago

S PavithraBookmark

Once Arbitration is Abandoned, Fresh Proceedings on Same Dispute Barred: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court held that a claimant who abandons arbitral proceedings cannot later restart arbitration on the same cause of action.

Applying principles of Order 23 Rule 1 CPC, the Court ruled that withdrawal without liberty bars fresh proceedings, even under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

It observed that allowing repeated attempts would amount to abuse of process and undermine finality in dispute resolution. In the present case, the respondent had earlier withdrawn participation and failed to revive claims despite opportunity, yet later sought fresh arbitration.

Setting aside the High Court’s order, the Court held the second application legally untenable.

[Rajiv Gaddh v. Subodh Parkash]

Read Judgement / 3 days ago

S PavithraBookmark

Supreme Court: Foreign Arbitral Awards Protected by "Transnational Issue Estoppel"

The Supreme Court of India has held that a foreign arbitral award cannot be challenged on "public policy" grounds if the seat court has already conclusively decided the issue.

The Bench introduced the doctrine of 'transnational issue estoppel' to prevent parties from relitigating settled factual or legal merits in Indian enforcement courts.

The Court emphasized that India’s sovereign commitment to the New York Convention mandates honoring foreign awards unless exhaustive grounds under Section 48 are met.

Consequently, once a seat court rejects a contention, the enforcement court cannot re-examine it, ensuring efficiency in resolving cross-border commercial disputes.

[Nagaraj v. Mylandla v. PI Opportunities Fund-I & Ors.]

Read Details / 6 days ago

AnvishaaBookmark

Delhi High Court Upholds ₹1.93 Crore Arbitral Award in NHAI–BEL-ACC Dispute

The Delhi High Court upheld an arbitral award of about ₹1.93 crore in favour of BEL-ACC in a dispute with NHAI.

The case arose from a highway construction contract where changes in work led to disagreements over payments. NHAI challenged the award under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, arguing that the tribunal’s calculations were incorrect.

However, the Court refused to interfere, stating that courts cannot re-examine evidence or act like an appeal court.

It held that the tribunal’s decision was fair, balanced, and based on facts, so the award was valid.

[M/s National Highways Authority of India v. M/s BEL-ACC (JV)]

Read Judgement / 11 days ago

S PavithraBookmark

Mere Participation in Arbitration Does Not Bar Jurisdictional Challenge: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court held that merely taking part in arbitration proceedings does not stop a party from later challenging the arbitrator’s jurisdiction.

The Court found that in this case, there was no valid arbitration agreement between the parties, making the entire arbitration process invalid. It observed that jurisdictional defects go to the root and cannot be cured by participation or consent.

Since the arbitrator lacked authority from the beginning, the award passed was treated as non-existent in law.

Upholding the Bombay High Court’s decision, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and reaffirmed that jurisdiction cannot be created by conduct alone.

[M/s Bharat Udyog Ltd. (formerly known as M/s Jai Hind Contractors Pvt. Ltd.) v. Ambernath Municipal Council & Anr.]

Read Judgement / 11 days ago

S PavithraBookmark

Delhi High Court Restrains Transfer of Legends League Cricket Broadcast Rights

The Delhi High Court granted interim relief to JioStar India by restraining Absolute Legends Sports from creating any third-party broadcasting rights for the Legends League Cricket Master T20 tournament.

The Court passed the order to prevent the "complete erosion" of the subject matter amid an ongoing dispute over media rights and unpaid dues.

The Court specifically interdicted the transfer of rights to Bluegod Entertainment Limited, noting that JioStar’s claims must be protected until the dispute is resolved.

While the matter was previously referred to mediation without success, the Court has now scheduled the next hearing for April 22.

[Jiostar India Pvt. Ltd. v. Ms Absolute Legends Sports Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.]

Read Order / 17 days ago

AnvishaaBookmark

Arbitral Tribunal Cannot Grant Pre-Award Interest if Contract Prohibits it: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court ruled that an arbitral tribunal cannot grant pre-award or pendente lite interest, even if framed as "compensation," when the contract expressly prohibits it.

The Bench set aside an Allahabad High Court order that had upheld such interest. The Court emphasized that under Section 31(7)(a) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, the parties' agreement prevails.

Since the contract (GCC) barred interest on payments until the date of the award, the tribunal’s grant of financing charges was legally erroneous.

However, the Court upheld post-award interest, modifying the rate from 12% to 8%.

[UOI & Ors. v. Larsen & Toubro Ltd.]

Read Judgement / 28 days ago

AnvishaaBookmark

CJI Surya Kant Calls for Stronger Arbitration Framework Amid India’s Economic Growth

Chief Justice of India Surya Kant emphasized that India’s rapid economic expansion necessitates a robust and credible framework for resolving complex cross-border commercial disputes.

Speaking at the launch of the Chandigarh International Arbitration Centre, asserting that India must position itself as a trusted global jurisdiction for litigation, mediation, and arbitration to inspire confidence among international investors.

He noted that modern supply chains and digital transactions demand structural coherence across all dispute resolution systems.

Describing the new center as an exercise in institutional imagination, he called for a transformation that prepares India for the next phase of global economic integration.

Read Details / 28 days ago

AnvishaaBookmark

CJI Surya Kant to Launch Chandigarh International Arbitration Centre at IIDW 2026

Chief Justice of India, Hon'ble Justice Surya Kant will launch the Chandigarh International Arbitration Centre (CIAC) on March 7 during the inaugural ceremony of India International Disputes Week (IIDW) 2026 in Chandigarh.

The event is expected to bring together judges, policymakers, lawyers, and international delegates to discuss developments in arbitration and dispute resolution.

The CIAC aims to promote institutional, time-bound, and professionally administered arbitration under a structured rules-based framework.

Its establishment is intended to strengthen Chandigarh’s position as a key hub for arbitration and mediation in northern India and to enhance efficient resolution of complex commercial and cross-border disputes.

Read Details / a month ago

S PavithraBookmark

Merely Being Ultimate Beneficiary Not a Ground to be made Party to Arbitration: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court said that a person or organisation cannot be forced into arbitration if they did not sign the contract, even if they benefit from the project.

Arbitration is based on agreement between parties, and only those who agreed to it can be included.

The Court clarified that just being the “ultimate beneficiary” of a project is not enough to make someone part of an arbitration case.

In this matter, the Court removed the Indian Institute of Management Jammu from the arbitration proceedings, as it was not a signatory to the contract.

[M/s Ramacivil India Construction Pvt Ltd v. Central Public Works Department & Anr.]

Read Judgment / a month ago

S PavithraBookmark

Supreme Court Upholds Delhi High Court Refusal to Recall Arbitrator in Vedanta-GSPC Dispute

The Supreme Court of India has dismissed special leave petitions filed in the dispute between Vedanta Limited (Cairn Oil & Gas Division) and Gujarat State Petroleum Corporation Limited, refusing to interfere with a Delhi High Court order appointing an arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.

The Bench found no ground to invoke jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution.

After GSPC failed to nominate an arbitrator, the High Court appointed one and later rejected its recall plea, holding that issues of arbitrability may be raised before the tribunal under Section 16.

The ruling reiterates minimal judicial interference at the pre-arbitration stage.

[Vedanta Ltd. v. Gujarat State Petroleum Corporation Ltd.]

Read Judgment / a month ago

MananBookmark

Supreme Court Upholds Delhi High Court Ruling that BSNL has Satisfied 2000 Arbitral Award

The Supreme Court dismissed BWL Limited’s plea challenging a Delhi High Court order holding that Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) had satisfied a 2000 arbitral award.

The dispute concerned the computation of post-award interest. The Delhi High Court held that post-award interest was payable only on the principal sums and not on the pendente lite interest, and concluded that no further amount was due.

Refusing to interfere, the Supreme Court observed that it was not inclined to disturb the High Court’s judgment, thereby bringing the long-standing execution dispute to an end.

[BWL Ltd. v. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.]

Read order / a month ago

MahiraBookmark

Supreme Court Holds Drafting of Ambiguous Arbitration Clauses by Law Firms Amounts to Professional Misconduct

The Supreme Court strongly criticised law firms for writing unclear arbitration and jurisdiction clauses in business contracts.

A bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant called this "professional misconduct" that creates confusion and leads to more court cases.

They said lawyers deliberately make clauses complicated instead of using simple one-line terms, questioning who grants them law degrees and allows them to form firms.

The Supreme Court refused to change this but warned against such poor drafting by young lawyers in big firms

[Himadri Speciality Chemicals v. Jindal Coke Ltd.]

Read Order / a month ago

VishwaBookmark

High Court Cannot Invalidate Earlier Arbitral Proceedings While Substituting Arbitrator: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that a High Court cannot declare earlier arbitral proceedings null while exercising powers under Section 15(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Setting aside a Bombay High Court order, the Court clarified that substitution of an arbitrator ensures continuity of proceedings and does not invalidate prior orders.

Emphasising minimal judicial intervention, the Bench ruled that earlier tribunal orders are protected under Section 15(4) and cannot be annulled without invoking the statutory appellate mechanism under Section 37.

[Ankhim Holding Pvt Ltd. & Anr. v. Zaveri Constructions Pvt Ltd.]

Read Order / a month ago

MananBookmark

Delhi High Court Imposes ₹1 Lakh Costs for Repetitive Execution-Stage Objection to Arbitral Award

The Delhi High Court imposed costs of ₹1 lakh on a judgment debtor for raising a baseless and repeated objection during execution of an arbitral award, holding that the attempt amounted to an abuse of process and was hit by res judicata.

The case arose from execution proceedings concerning an arbitral award, which had already been affirmed under Sections 16, 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act and by the Supreme Court.

The Court directed payment of the costs within two weeks, with ₹50,000 to the decree holder and ₹50,000 to the Delhi High Court Bar Association.

[Avneet Soni v. Kavita Agarwal]

Read Judgment / a month ago

Thanush SBookmark