The Bombay High Court upheld an arbitral award allowing a trader to retain ₹1.75 crore earned through trades executed using erroneous margin credit caused by a technical glitch in Kotak Securities’ system.

Dismissing the broker’s challenge under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the Court held that a broker cannot benefit from its own mistake or deny profits earned through a trader’s skill and risk.

The Court observed that the margin glitch only provided an opportunity to trade and that the trader bore the risk of loss.

It also noted lapses in Kotak’s risk management and upheld the arbitral tribunal’s directions.

[Kotak Securities Ltd v. Gajanan Ramdas Rajguru]

The Delhi High Court set aside an arbitral award, holding that an arbitrator cannot alter contractual terms by linking repayment obligations to commercial success when the agreement provides otherwise.

The Court ruled that once the Advisory and Monitoring Committee certified successful technology development, repayment was triggered as per the contract.

By introducing a condition of commercial viability, the arbitrator exceeded jurisdiction and rewrote the contract, attracting the ground of patent illegality under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.

[Technology Information Forecasting and Assessment Council v. Strategic Engineering Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.]

Chief Justice of India Surya Kant clarified that courts will not mechanically send cases to mediation. 

He said that an internal team of experts first examines whether a dispute is genuinely suitable for settlement before any reference is made.

Emphasising judicial responsibility, the CJI noted that courts remain fully equipped to decide cases on merits if mediation does not succeed.

The CJI further observed that mediation is meant to complement, and not replace, other dispute resolution mechanisms such as arbitration and conciliation, ensuring a balanced and effective justice delivery system.

The Delhi High Court declined to substitute a retired Supreme Court judge as sole arbitrator despite a 16-month delay in pronouncing the award.

Justice Subramonium Prasad held that the award had already been prepared and the proceedings were at a final stage. Substituting the arbitrator at this point would only cause further delay and unnecessary duplication of work.

Granting a short extension of the arbitrator’s mandate till January 31, 2026, the Court emphasized that statutory timelines should not defeat substantive justice where delay is not deliberate.

The Delhi High Court has held that the non-obstante clause under Section 13(2) of the Commercial Courts Act prevails over Section 10 of the Delhi High Court Act while dealing with arbitral appeals.

The Court dismissed appeals filed against orders passed under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.

It observed that the phrase “any other law for the time being in force” in Section 13(2) of the Commercial Courts Act is wide enough to include the Delhi High Court Act.

It ruled that once a dispute falls within the ambit of the Commercial Courts Act, the appellate framework provided under that statute alone would govern, excluding recourse under the Delhi High Court Act.

[Tarachandra v. Bhawarlal & Anr.]

The Delhi High Court has criticised the Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation Limited for insisting that a private contractor appoint its nominee arbitrator from a panel curated by the PSU.

The Court said it continues to encounter such cases despite clear Supreme Court rulings against panel-based appointments controlled by one party.

It held that panel-based appointments unilaterally prepared by one party undermine the principle of equal participation in the arbitral process and are contrary to settled law on the independence and impartiality of arbitrators.

The Court reiterated that arbitral appointments must ensure fairness and neutrality between the parties.

[Meghalaya Hotels v. IRCTC]

The Bombay High Court dismissed a PIL seeking to use Goa’s old Lyceum High Court complex as an arbitration and mediation centre, holding that the petitioners had no statutory or legal right to make such a demand.

The Court observed that the plea appeared driven by personal interest rather than public interest.

Accepting the Goa government’s assurance, the Bench noted that the Lyceum’s heritage would be preserved

It also stated that the State would support setting up a mediation centre at an alternative location.

[Vishwesh Atchuta Kamat & Anr. v. High Court of Bombay & Ors.].

The Supreme Court has held that a Referral Court under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act can examine whether a non-signatory is a real party to the arbitration agreement. 

The Court clarified that this inquiry is prima facie and limited to checking the existence of an arbitration agreement, without conducting a detailed trial.

The Court ruled that BCL failed to show any intention or privity binding it to the HPCL–AGC contract, setting aside the Bombay High Court order appointing an arbitrator.

[Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. BCL Secure Premises Pvt. Ltd.]

The Meghalaya High Court dismissed an appeal by Suraksha Salvia LLP challenging the State Government’s termination of a PPP agreement for a diagnostic centre in Shillong.

The Court held that the LLP was not in existence when the agreement was executed and therefore could not invoke Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.

It said a non-signatory that did not exist on the date of contract execution cannot rely on the group-of-companies doctrine to seek interim protection.

The Court upheld the Single Judge’s order and refused to interfere with the termination.

[Suraksha Salvia LLP v. State of Meghalaya]

The Supreme Court urged the Law Ministry to revisit gaps in India’s arbitration regime while the Arbitration and Conciliation Bill, 2024 is under consideration.

The Court said the legislation should clarify the arbitral tribunal’s power to terminate proceedings and entertain recall requests, and define the effect of such termination with precision.

The observation came in an appeal involving refusal to appoint an arbitrator under Sections 11(5) and 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, where the Bench noted that uncertainties dating back to the Model Law persist even today.

The Court suggested consolidation of provisions and a statutory appeal mechanism, and remanded the case for appointment of a substitute arbitrator.

[Harshbir Singh Pannu and Anr. v. Jaswinder Singh]

The Calcutta High Court set aside an ex parte arbitral award in a ₹7.27-crore loan dispute after finding that SREI Equipment Finance Ltd. had unilaterally appointed the sole arbitrator.

The Court held that such an appointment violates natural justice and breaches Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, making the award a nullity.

It rejected objections on limitation, holding that delivery of the signed award was not proved, and clarified that Calcutta retained supervisory jurisdiction as the seat of arbitration.

The Court held such unilateral appointments are legally invalid and cannot be cured by participation.

[Y S Transport Company & Anr. v. SERI Equipment Finance Ltd.] 

The Rajasthan High Court has issued a directive stating that all online mediation for cases referred by its courts must be conducted exclusively on the Jupitice Online Mediation Platform.

The court aimed at standardizing the process, enhancing accessibility, ensuring the security and integrity of proceedings, and streamlining case management.

The order applies to all pending and future cases referred to mediation by the High Court and its subordinate courts.

The move is intended to promote the effective and efficient resolution of disputes through a unified, secure digital platform, centralizing the state's online mediation efforts.

The Supreme Court remarked that arbitration in India is generating litigation at every stage while hearing a challenge to an ICC tribunal’s decision to shift the final hearing from Delhi to London.

The Court noted that the arbitration agreement and the ICC framework fixed Hyderabad as the venue and questioned how proceedings moved across locations without a single hearing there.

It also asked why domestic venues were not explored, observing that India has several capable centres.

The Bench sought venue proposals that would allow the December hearings to proceed and indicated the case would be taken up tomorrow.

[NMDC Steel v. Danieli]

The Madras High Court ruled that an arbitral tribunal lacks jurisdiction to lift the corporate veil or hold a non-signatory company liable.

The Court observed that doing so violates the consent-based framework under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which confines arbitration strictly to parties who have agreed to arbitrate. 

The dispute arose when the arbitral tribunal attempted to treat a third company as the petitioner’s “alter ego” and extend liability under an MOU.

The Court held that veil-lifting is strictly within the domain of courts, and only in exceptional cases involving fraud, or statutory provisions.. 

[Sugesan Transport Pvt Ltd v. E.C. Bose & Company Pvt Ltd & Ors.]