Arbitration Law News and Expert Insights

Arbitration

Zostel appeals to a Delhi HC order that set aside an Arbitral Award of 7% stake in OYO

Zostel Hospitality moved the Delhi High Court Division Bench challenging a single judge’s order that set aside an arbitral award granting it rights to a 7% stake in OYO [Oravel Stays].

A Bench of Justices Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Anish Dayal issued notice to OYO and listed the matter for October 9.

The dispute began in 2015 when OYO agreed to acquire Zostel’s business in exchange for equity, but the parties never signed definitive agreements.

In 2021, an arbitral tribunal found OYO in breach, but Justice Sachin Datta in May 2025 annulled the award. Zostel now seeks restoration of its stake or equivalent compensation.

13 hours ago

VedikaBookmark

Delhi HC Upholds Arbitration Award on “Sound Condition” Clause Superseding “As Is Where Is” Term

The Delhi High Court, in an arbitration appeal, upheld an award in which a later acceptance letter stating that goods would be transacted in “sound condition” replaced an earlier “as is where is” term in the tender.

The dispute involved a tender for lifting 100 metric tons of Canadian-origin red lentils. While the tender specified an “as is where is” basis, the acceptance letter clarified that only cargo in sound and good condition would be accepted.

The court agreed that the latter understanding superseded the prior agreement, thereby validating the buyer’s right to reject mixed or damaged consignment.

Read Details / 2 days ago

RoshaniBookmark

Post-Termination Restrictive Covenants In Employment Contracts Are Void U/S 27 Of Contract Act: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court held that post-employment non-compete clauses are void under Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.

The court vacated the interim injunction restraining former executives from competing in the drone sector, ruling such restrictions violate their professional rights under Article 19(1)(g).

The court reaffirmed that restraints during employment are enforceable but not after termination. The Court appointed Justice S.K. Kaul (Retd.) as sole arbitrator to resolve the dispute, including the validity of the non-compete and related breaches.

[Neosky India Ltd. v. Nagendran Kandasamy & Ors.]

Read Order / 2 days ago

RoshaniBookmark

Supreme Court Says Non-Signatories Cannot Attend Arbitration Proceedings, Upholds Confidentiality

The Supreme Court set aside a Delhi High Court order allowing non-signatories to an arbitration agreement to attend arbitral proceedings, holding it violated the confidentiality mandate in Section 42A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.

The Court said arbitral proceedings bind only parties to the agreement and those claiming under them, and strangers cannot be permitted to observe.

It added that once an arbitrator is appointed under Section 11(6), the court becomes functus officio and cannot issue further directions. Rejecting reliance on Section 151 CPC, the Bench imposed ₹3 lakh costs on the respondents.

[Kamal Gupta & Anr. v. M/s L.R. Builders Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.]

3 days ago

VedikaBookmark

Oyo moves Delhi High Court against arbitral award in lease dispute with Lenskart

The Delhi High Court has issued notice to Lenskart on Oyo Hotels and Homes Pvt Ltd’s plea challenging parts of an arbitral award in a Bengaluru coworking space lease dispute.

The 2019 lease was terminated by Lenskart in May 2020, citing COVID-19. Oyo alleged premature termination and sought ₹7.8 crore in rent, while Lenskart demanded a ₹1.21 crore refund.

The arbitrator found the pandemic did not trigger force majeure but capped Oyo’s lock-in period compensation and ruled on interest and stamp duty.

Oyo now seeks to set aside these findings, with Lenskart asked to respond. The court has sought Lenskart’s response to the challenge.

[Oyo Hotels and Homes Pvt Limited Vs Lenskart Solutions]

Read Details / 5 days ago

VedikaBookmark

Delhi High Court Upholds Arbitrator’s Interim Award Enforcing Non-Compete Clause in SHA

The Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act challenging an interim award passed under Section 17, which restrained appellants from breaching a non-compete clause in a valid Shareholders’ Agreement (SHA).

The Court held that such enforcement doesn’t violate Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act, as the SHA wasn’t lawfully terminated.

The Court observed that managerial disengagement doesn't absolve contractual obligations and noted the appellants’ inconsistent positions.

The Court held that interim relief was essential to preserve the arbitration’s subject matter and prevent irreparable harm. The Court found the award reasonable and satisfying the triple test for interim relief.

[Paul Deepak Rajaratnam & Ors. V Surgeport Logistics Private Limited & Anr.]

Read Judgement / 10 days ago

VedikaBookmark

Supreme Court: Allegations of Simple Fraud Don’t Bar Arbitration in ₹1500 Cr Bihar PDS Scam

The Supreme Court has upheld arbitration proceedings in the ₹1,500-crore Bihar PDS scam, ruling that criminal cases involving simple fraud like cheating or breach of trust do not bar arbitration.

Dismissing Bihar State Food and Supply Corporation’s plea, the Court emphasised the existence of a valid arbitration agreement. It clarified that only "serious fraud" involving forgery or public interest issues renders a dispute non-arbitrable.

Since the case involved "simple fraud" within a contractual context, arbitration must proceed. The Court relied on Avitel v. HSBC and a recent 7-judge bench ruling In Re Interplay on arbitrability.

[Managing Director, Bihar State Food & Civil Supply Corporation Ltd & Anr V Sanjay Kumar]

Read Judgement / 11 days ago

KanishkaBookmark

Supreme Court Bars Forum Shopping, Holds Parties Cannot Pursue Multiple Arbitrations for Same Dispute

The Supreme Court held that parties cannot pursue multiple or sequential arbitration forums for the same dispute under different legal regimes.

Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan ruled that once a statutory arbitral process is initiated, parties cannot abandon it to invoke private arbitration for the same dispute.

Such actions, the Court said, are barred by the doctrines of election and estoppel and amount to impermissible forum shopping.

The Court clarified that statutory arbitration requirements override conflicting contractual clauses, directing the appellant to seek revival of their original petition only before the statutory tribunal.

[Umri Pooph Pratappur Tollways Private Limited v. MP Road Development Corporation]

Judgement Copy / 17 days ago

MalavikaBookmark

Rajasthan High Court: Full Court‑Fee Refund Allowed if Case Settled at Appellate Stage Under Section 89 CPC

The Rajasthan High Court has overturned a trial court’s refusal to refund court fees, holding that a litigant is entitled to full refund when a dispute is amicably settled under Section 89 of the CPC, even if the settlement occurs at the appellate stage after a decree or appeal.

Justice Arun Monga found that Section 65‑B of the Rajasthan Court Fees & Suit Valuation Act aligns with Section 89 CPC and supports refunds when resolution happens via court-facilitated ADR, such as mediation or Lok Adalat.

Highlighting the importance of easing judicial backlog, the Court said encouraging out-of-court settlements aligns with the goal of promoting efficient and speedy justice and instructed the issuance of a refund certificate to the appellant.

[Harish Madhan v Kshema Power and Infrastructure Co. Pvt. Ltd.]

17 days ago

YashashviBookmark

Supreme Court Dismisses Zostel’s Plea Against Delhi High Court Order in Oyo Dispute

The Supreme Court has quashed Zostel Hospitality’s challenge against a Delhi High Court ruling to set aside a 2021 arbitral award in its dispute with Oyo.

The Court held that Zostel should have preferred an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act, not a Special Leave Petition.

The dispute arose from a 2015 term sheet where Zostel’s shareholders were to get a 7% equity stake in Oyo in return for transferring business and personnel.

Zostel claimed it fulfilled its obligations, but Oyo did not sign definitive agreements, citing resistance from a minority investor. Hence, leading to the arbitration.

[Zostel v Oravel Stays Pvt. Ltd.]

20 days ago

UjjwalBookmark

Delhi High Court Refers ‘Sasta Wallah’ Defamation Dispute Between Physics Wallah and Scholars Den to Mediation

The Delhi High Court has referred Physics Wallah’s defamation suit against coaching institute Scholars Den to mediation. The dispute arose after Scholars Den allegedly ran ads calling Physics Wallah “sasta wallah (cheap one)” to promote its own services.

Physics Wallah claimed the term was defamatory and misleading, given its courses range from ₹50 to ₹1 lakh. Scholars Den reportedly filmed some ads outside Physics Wallah’s centres and implied that lower prices meant lower quality.

Justice Tejas Karia passed the order; the matter will be heard next on September 3.

[PhysicsWallah Private Limited v Mr. Vivek Thakur Trading as Scholars Den]

Read Order / 20 days ago

YashashviBookmark

Delhi High Court: Civil Courts Can Stay Foreign-Seated Arbitrations

The Delhi High Court has restrained an ICC arbitration seated in Singapore between PSU Engineering Projects India Ltd (EPIL) and Oman-based MSA Global, citing procedural impropriety and potential bias.

EPIL sought an anti-arbitration injunction, alleging that a co-arbitrator maintained close ties with MSA’s top management, undermining the tribunal's impartiality.

Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav observed that Indian courts are empowered to intervene in foreign-seated arbitrations if the proceedings are oppressive, unfair, or contrary to public policy.

The Court underscored that arbitration must not be misused as a tool for harassment. Arguments have been heard, and judgment has been reserved. [Engineering Projects (India) Limited v MSA Global LLC (Oman]

Read Order / 21 days ago

UjjwalBookmark

Calcutta High Court Allows Multiple Extensions of Arbitrator Mandate on Showing Sufficient Cause

The Calcutta High Court ruled that courts may grant multiple extensions to an arbitrator’s mandate beyond the standard 12-month or extended 18-month period under Section 29A(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, provided sufficient cause exists.

In Rohan Builders (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Berger Paints India Ltd., Justice Shampa Sarkar extended the arbitrator’s mandate even after the Supreme Court‑imposed deadline had passed. The petitioner cited lengthy proceedings, voluminous evidence compilation, and delays in cross-examinations as reasons for the extension.

The Court reaffirmed that while prompt arbitration remains crucial, delays arising from legitimate causes do not prevent extensions being granted.

23 days ago

YashashviBookmark

Calcutta HC Upholds Arbitral Award in Favour of Sourav Ganguly

The Calcutta High Court upheld an arbitral award of Rs. 14.49 Cr in favour of former cricketer Sourav Ganguly, arising from a dispute with a player management agency (Percept Talent Management) that had unilaterally terminated a Player Representation Agreement.

The agency challenged the arbitral award, which granted Ganguly compensation, arguing procedural irregularities and a lack of jurisdiction.

However, the Court ruled that the arbitral tribunal had acted well within its jurisdiction and that the award did not suffer from any patent illegality or violation of natural justice.

Read Details / 24 days ago

YashashviBookmark

“Arbitration Becoming Rich Man’s Litigation”: Justice Dhulia Flags Concerns

Supreme Court judge Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia has remarked that arbitration in India is turning into “a rich man’s litigation,” raising doubts over its accessibility and effectiveness as an alternative dispute resolution mechanism.

Speaking at a symposium, he questioned whether arbitration genuinely delivers speedy justice, citing frequent delays, particularly in arbitrator appointments, and excessive court interference.

Justice Dhulia highlighted the Centre’s recent move to restrict arbitration in smaller contracts as a reflection of dissatisfaction with the system. He noted that ad hoc arbitration still dominates in India, unlike global practices. He called for cultural and institutional reforms to make India a true arbitration hub.

Read Details / 25 days ago

UjjwalBookmark