Category: Arbitration

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 29A — Mandate of Arbitrator — Extension of mandate — In the absence of specific statutory provisions, party autonomy and minimal judicial intervention are guiding principles — If a party participates in proceedings and does not object to the extension of mandate, they may be estopped from challenging the award on that ground after it is passed.

2026 INSC 552 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH GUJARAT WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD Vs. SARYU PLASTICS PVT. LTD ( Before : Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Alok Aradhe, JJ.…

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the Act) — Section 33 and Section 34(3) — Limitation for filing application to set aside arbitral award — Exclusion of time spent in disposal of applications under Section 33 — Court held that period spent in disposal of Section 33 applications by Arbitral Tribunal must be excluded for computing limitation under Section 34(3) of the Act, regardless of whether the Section 33 applications were ultimately allowed or dismissed.

2026 INSC 616 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA Vs. T. YOUNIS AND ANOTHER ( Before : Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Alok Aradhe, JJ. )…

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 16 — Challenge to Arbitral Tribunal’s order on jurisdiction — Writ jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of Constitution — High Court’s powers and limitations — Distinction between maintainability and entertainability of writ petition — When writ intervention is permissible — Principle of minimal judicial intervention in arbitral proceedings.

2026 INSC 566 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S TARINI PRASAD MOHANTY Vs. M/S SUNFLAG IRON AND STEEL COMPANY LIMITED ( Before : J. K. Maheshwari and Atul S.…

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 34 & 37 — Scope of Interference — Court’s jurisdiction under Section 34 is narrowly circumscribed and confined to specific grounds enumerated — Court cannot act as an appellate forum to correct factual errors or review merits — Arbitral Tribunal is master of evidence and interpretation of contracts — Interference is not warranted merely because an alternative view is possible, if the tribunal’s conclusion is plausible and can be arrived at by a reasonable person.

2026 INSC 590 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MADHYA PRADESH ROAD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR Vs. M/S JABALPUR CORRIDOR PVT. LTD. THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR (…

Arbitration Act, 1940 — Section 21 — Arbitration in suits — Mandatory requirement of court order of reference — For arbitration proceedings to be validly initiated or continued during pendency of a suit, parties must obtain an order of reference from the court under Section 21 — Failure to comply renders the award legally ineffective as a bar to the suit.

2026 INSC 591 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ASHOK AND OTHERS Vs. PADAM CHAND AND OTHERS ( Before : J.K. Maheshwari and Atul S. Chandurkar, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Sections 34 and 37 — Scope of powers of Court to set aside or modify arbitral award — Modification of award is a limited power compared to annulment, aimed at achieving more just outcomes and avoiding hardship and delay, especially in India where litigation takes years — Appellate jurisdiction under Section 37 is coterminous with and as broad as jurisdiction under Section 34.

2026 INSC 546 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BHUPESH BHAYANA AND ANOTHER Vs. KUNAL SETH AND ANOTHER ( Before : Sanjay Kumar and K. Vinod Chandran, JJ. ) Civil…

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 11(6) — Privity of Contract — Collaborator invoked arbitration clause — High Court rejected petition claiming no privity of contract — Supreme Court granted leave and held Collaborator as veritable party with joint and several liability.

2026 INSC 458 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ELECON ENGINEERING COMPANY LIMITED Vs. BHARTIYA RAIL BIJLEE COMPANY LIMITED AND ANOTHER ( Before : Sanjay Kumar and K. Vinod Chandran,…

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 9 — Petition under Section 9 at post-award stage by unsuccessful party — Maintainability — Bombay, Delhi, Madras and Karnataka High Courts held such petitions not maintainable — Telangana, Gujarat and Punjab & Haryana High Courts held such petitions maintainable — Supreme Court held that any party to an arbitration agreement, including an unsuccessful party, can invoke Section 9 at the post-award stage, overruling the former judgments.

2026 INSC 415 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH HOME CARE RETAIL MARTS PVT. LTD. Vs. HARESH N. SANGHAVI ( Before : Manoj Misra and Manmohan, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 34 — Challenge to Arbitral Award — Legal Representatives — The Arbitration Act is a complete code for dispute resolution — Legal representatives of a deceased party are entitled to challenge an arbitral award under Section 34 of the Act, as the Act envisions continuity of proceedings after a party’s death and makes awards enforceable by or against legal representatives — Denying this right would render legal representatives remediless while making them liable to fulfill the award, contradicting the Act’s purpose.

2026 INSC 393 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH V.K. JOHN Vs. S. MUKANCHAND BOTHRA AND HUF (DIED) REPRESENTED BY LRS. AND OTHERS ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Vipul…

You missed