Arbitration Law Articles and Expert Insights

Delhi High Court Bars Gensol, BluSmart from Alienating EVs leased from Orix

Case Name: Orix Corporation v. Gensol Engineering Ltd. & BluSmart Mobility Pvt. Ltd.

The Delhi High Court has restrained Gensol Engineering Ltd. and BluSmart Mobility from transferring or creating third-party rights over 175 electric vehicles leased from Japan-based Orix Corporation.

The court issued the interim order in a petition filed by Orix under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, alleging lease payment defaults amounting to ₹4 crore and breaches of contract

It has sought to prevent Gensol and BluSmart from disposing of leased vehicles. Matter is further listed for May 16.

This development comes as SEBI investigates Gensol for corporate governance lapses and financial irregularities.

Read Details / 9 hours ago

Ajit

Delhi PWD Removes Arbitration Clause From Future Contracts, Opts for Litigation

Delhi Public Works Department (PWD) has removed the arbitration clause from all future contracts, mandating that disputes be resolved exclusively through Delhi courts.

An office order dated April 21 deleted Clause 25 of the General Conditions of Contract, which provided for "Settlement of Disputes & Arbitration".

The move aligns with the Union Finance Ministry’s 2024 guidelines restricting arbitration in public contracts due to concerns over delays and inefficiencies.

However, legal experts, including Senior Advocate Gourab Banerji, criticised the decision, warning it undermines India’s arbitration framework and risks overburdening the judiciary with procurement-related litigation.

Read Details / 2 days ago

Prakshaal

Ex-Fortis Promoter Shivinder Mohan Singh Files for Personal Insolvency Before NCLT

Shivinder Mohan Singh, former promoter of Fortis Healthcare and Religare Enterprises, has filed for personal insolvency before NCLT Delhi, under Section 94 of the IBC, which permits individuals unable to repay debts to seek a structured resolution.

In his plea, Singh stated that his liabilities now far exceed his assets, many of which have been attached or devalued due to ongoing litigation, including the ₹3,500 crore arbitral award granted by a Singapore Tribunal in favor of Daiichi Sankyo, which found the SM Singh brothers liable for fraudulent misrepresentation in the 2008 Ranbaxy Deal.

The matter is scheduled for further hearing on May 20.

Read Details / 4 days ago

Asghar

Writ Petition Maintainable When Section 9 of Arbitration Act Order Neither Grants Nor Refuses Relief

Case Name: Flemingo (DFS) Pvt. Ltd. v. AAI

The Kerala High Court held that a writ petition under Articles 226/227 is maintainable against a Commercial Court’s order under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act when the order neither grants nor refuses relief, making it non-appealable under Section 37.

In this case, the Commercial Court merely "closed" the petition without adjudicating on the interim reliefs sought. The court observed that such closure, based on the assumption that arbitration proceedings had commenced, did not amount to a decision under Section 9.

Consequently, the petitioner lacked an alternative remedy, justifying the invocation of writ jurisdiction.

The Court relied on Asian Resurfacing (2018), observed that interim protections should not lapse due to procedural delays not attributable to the litigant.

HC Order / 5 days ago

Prakshaal

Arbitrable Disputes Under Section 31 of Specific Relief Act Are Not Binding On Third Parties : Calcutta HC

Case Name: Jagat Singh Manot V The Municipal Commissioner, Kolkata & Ors

The Calcutta High Court held that disputes concerning the cancellation of written instruments under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, are arbitrable.

However, it emphasized that arbitral awards arising from such disputes are binding only on the parties involved and not on third parties who were not part of the arbitral proceedings.

This decision arose from a case in which the petitioner challenged the Kolkata Municipal Corporation's refusal to de-amalgamate premises, citing an arbitral award that had canceled a Deed of Exchange. The Corporation maintained that the deed remained valid, as it was not a party to the arbitration.

The High Court upheld this stance, reinforcing the principle that arbitral awards cannot impose obligations on non-parties.

10 days ago

Kritika

Arbitrator Cannot Be Appointed Unless Arbitration Clause Is Invoked With Proper Notice U/S 21 of A&C Act

Case Name: MS Cipher Oncology Pvt Ltd vs M S Unimed Health Care Pvt Ltd

The Telangana High Court has ruled that courts cannot appoint an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, unless the arbitration clause has been properly invoked through a valid notice under Section 21.

In this case, the applicant had sent a notice demanding outstanding payment but did not propose an arbitrator or formally invoke the arbitration clause under Section 21 of the Arbitration Act.

The court emphasized that merely demanding payment does not constitute a valid invocation of arbitration.

Consequently, the application for the appointment of an arbitrator was dismissed.

HC Order / 13 days ago

Manish

Singapore Court Upholds Setting Aside of Arbitral Award Chaired by Ex-CJI Dipak Misra Over Plagiarism Concern

Case Name: DJP and Others v DJO

The Singapore Court of Appeal set aside an international arbitral award involving a government railway contract after finding that 47% of the award was plagiarised from unrelated Indian arbitration proceedings.

The award, partially authored by a tribunal chaired by former CJI Dipak Misra, was found to have copied and pasted large sections without context or party disclosure.

The Court held that the tribunal failed to conduct an independent evaluation of the dispute, resulting in a breach of natural justice and creating an appearance of bias.

While the Court did not find bad faith, the award itself had to be set aside to safeguard the integrity and fairness of the arbitral process.

Judgment Copy / 17 days ago

Shriya

Calcutta High Court: MSME Council Can’t Reject Claims Without Hearing Both Parties After Failed Mediation

Case Name: UMC Technologies P Ltd Vs Assistant Director of Postal Services

The Calcutta High Court held that once mediation under Section 18 of the MSME Act, 2006 fails, the MSME Facilitation Council must either adjudicate the dispute or refer it to arbitration.

It cannot dismiss claims without valid reasons or without giving both parties an opportunity to present evidence.

In this case, the Council rejected a supplier’s claim for the final 10% payment due to the absence of a job satisfaction certificate without conducting a full hearing.

The Court, citing precedents including Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. and PSA Sical Terminals, set aside the order under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act.

HC Order / 18 days ago

Sanjana

Dispute Clause Not a Valid Arbitration Agreement Due to Lack of Impartiality: Calcutta HC

Case Name: Balasore Alloys Limited vs. Flynt Mining LLP

The Calcutta High Court dismissed a petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking the appointment of an arbitrator, ruling that Clause 16 of the agreement lacked a valid arbitration clause.

The petitioner had engaged the respondent for mining services but alleged a breach of contract and sought arbitration under Clause 16.

The Court found that Clause 16 provided only for in-house dispute resolution between the Managing Director of the petitioner and the Designated Partner of the respondent, lacking the clear intention and impartiality required for arbitration.

Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, citing lack of jurisdiction under Section 11.

HC Judgment / 18 days ago

Manish

Delhi High Court: Fourth Schedule Fee Cap Not Applicable to International Commercial Arbitration

Case Name: NHAI v. Ssyangyong Engineering Construction Co. Ltd.

The Delhi High Court ruled that the fee cap under the Fourth Schedule of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, does not apply to international commercial arbitration.

NHAI had challenged a tribunal's fee of ₹3,00,000 per arbitrator per sitting, seeking a ₹30,00,000 cap. However, the Court noted that the fee structure was disclosed in advance, and NHAI did not object at the time.

Relying on the explanation to Section 11(14) of the Act, the Court held that the Fourth Schedule is not binding and dismissed the petition, upholding party autonomy in fee arrangements.

HC Judgement / 22 days ago

Shivangi

Patna High Court Dismisses Arbitration Petition Due to Venue Clause Specifying New Delhi

Case Name: M/s Pramila Motors Pvt. Ltd. versus M/s Okinawa Autotech International Pvt. Ltd.

The Patna High Court dismissed the petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking the appointment of an arbitrator.

The petitioner terminated a dealership agreement over delayed vehicle deliveries and sought arbitration. The agreement's Clause 36.3 mentioned New Delhi as the "venue" for arbitration.

The petitioner argued that "seat" and "venue" differ, implying jurisdiction could lie elsewhere, citing Ravi Ranjan Developers Case (2022), while the respondent cited Brahmani River Pellets (2020) to claim exclusive jurisdiction in Delhi.

The court held that, without a separate "seat" clause, the designation of New Delhi as the "venue" conferred exclusive jurisdiction to the Delhi High Court and dismissed the petition.

HC Judgement / 27 days ago

Sanjana

Acceptance of Goods Under Invoice Implies Agreement to Its Terms, Including Arbitration Clause: Delhi HC

Case Name: Radico Khaitan Limited Vs Harish Chouhan

The Delhi High Court ruled that accepting goods under a tax invoice means agreeing to its terms, including the arbitration clause.

The petitioner supplied alcoholic beverages to the respondent and his son, with invoices containing an arbitration clause.

After a cheque issued by the respondent’s son was dishonored, the petitioner filed a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and later invoked arbitration under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

The court held that since the goods were accepted and payments were made, arbitration applied and appointed a sole arbitrator to resolve the dispute.

HC Judgement / 29 days ago

Sanjana

Delhi High Court Clarifies Jurisdiction under Arbitration Act When No Seat or Venue is Specified

Case Name: Faith Constructions v N.W.G.E.L Church

The Delhi High Court has ruled that when an arbitration agreement does not specify a seat or venue, the court's jurisdiction under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, is determined by Sections 16 to 20 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC).

Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri held that courts should consider where the respondent resides or conducts business and where the cause of action arose.

The case involved a contract dispute over construction work in Odisha.

The petitioner argued for Delhi’s jurisdiction, citing part payments made there, but the court found the integral cause of action arose in Odisha and dismissed the petition.

HC Judgement / a month ago

Nishtha Gupta

Arbitration clauses in Agreements Can't Override a Consumer’s Right to Redress in a Consumer Forum

Case Name: M/S Citicorp Finance (India) Limited Vs Snehasis Nanda

The Supreme Court reaffirmed that arbitration clauses in agreements do not override a consumer's right to approach the Consumer Forum. A consumer cannot be forced into arbitration solely due to an arbitration clause.

In this case, the respondent took an ICICI Bank loan to buy a flat and later signed a tripartite agreement with Citicorp Finance, which included an arbitration clause.

When a dispute arose, the respondent filed a complaint in NCDRC, which ordered Citicorp to pay ₹13,20,000 plus litigation costs.

Citicorp appealed, but the Court upheld the ruling, citing Emaar MGF Land Ltd. v. Aftab Singh (2019) and M. Hemalatha Devi v. B. Udayasri (2024).

SC Judgement / a month ago

Sanjana

UK Arbitration Act 2025: Major Reforms Introduced

The United Kingdom has enacted the Arbitration Act 2025, introducing targeted amendments to strengthen its arbitration framework. The changes, which received royal assent on February 24, 2025, aim to enhance efficiency, clarity, and judicial restraint in arbitration proceedings.

Key amendments include the default seat-centric rule, which mandates that arbitration agreements be governed by the law of the seat unless otherwise specified.

The Act also limits appeals on jurisdictional grounds, preventing courts from fully rehearing cases already decided by tribunals.

Notably, the Act introduces summary awards, allowing tribunals to dismiss unmeritorious claims without full hearings.

Arbitration Act 2025 / a month ago

Nishtha Gupta