Arbitration Monthly Digest: June 2025
Bombay Excessive Court docket
Case Title: Union of India Via The Common Supervisor Central Railway Versus PLR HC RBR JV
Case Quantity: COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION PETITION NO.51 OF 2024
The Bombay Excessive Court docket bench of Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan has held {that a} contractor can’t be denied cost for further work that, whereas past the unique scope of the settlement, was clearly consented to by the opposite social gathering by means of its conduct. When such work is accepted, measured, and never objected to contemporaneously, the benefiting social gathering can’t later declare it was past the contract’s scope. To permit this is able to quantity to unjust enrichment.
The court docket famous that the work was executed consistent with the Settlement below the energetic supervision of Railways officers, particularly throughout the Covid-19 lockdown. Extensions have been granted primarily based on floor realities. Regardless of alleging deficiencies, the Railways made no counterclaim in arbitration. Joint measurements, accepted RA Payments, and prior conduct confirmed acceptance of extra work.
It noticed that the Arbitral Tribunal rightly held that the Railways’ conduct indicated consensual and documented enlargement of labor, and it couldn’t depend on the absence of a proper modification to disclaim cost. The Tribunal’s findings are cheap, well-supported, and can’t be faulted.
Case Title: Board of Management for Cricket in India v. Kochi Cricket Non-public Restricted and Anr.
Case Quantity: ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 1752 OF 2015 and ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 1753 OF 2015
The Bombay Excessive Court docket has upheld an arbitral award granting damages amounting to 538.9 crore to Kochi Cricket Non-public Restricted (“KCPL”), the mother or father firm of defunct IPL franchise Kochi Tuskers Kerala. It was held that the Court docket can’t act as a Court docket of First Attraction and delve right into a fact-finding train by revisiting and re-appreciating the report and accepting competing interpretations of the varied clauses of the agreements between the events by invoking the bottom of perversity.
The bench of Justice Riyaz Iqbal Chagla noticed that the Arbitrator adjudicated the core difficulty, i.e., whether or not Board of Management for Cricket in India (“BCCI”) has wrongfully invoked the financial institution assure furnished by Rendezvous Sports activities World (“RSW”) and whether or not this amounted to a repudiatory breach of KCPL’s Franchise Settlement (“KCPL-FA”), by contemplating the fabric information and paperwork on report in addition to the proof recorded.
Calcutta Excessive Court docket
Case Title: The Board of Main Port Authority for the Syama Prasad Mukherjee Port, Kolkata Vs. Marinecraft Engineers Non-public Restricted
Case Quantity: A.P.-COM No.296 of 2024 (Previous No. A.P. 179 of 2023)
The Calcutta Excessive Court docket bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya has held that when arbitral proceedings commenced below Part 18(3) below the MSME Act, the method couldn’t be reversed to reinitiate pre-arbitral conciliation. The Council didn’t achieve this both. It was solely on the petitioner’s request that extra avenues for mutual settlement have been explored alongside the arbitration. Upon the failure of those efforts, the Council proceeded to determine the matter on deserves.
The court docket famous that the timeline stipulated below Part 29A of the 1996 Act should not relevant to an arbitral continuing below the 2006 Act. Reasonably, the interval stipulated below Part 18(5) of the 2006 Act is the related guiding issue. Nonetheless, the latter interval is listing and never obligatory.
It additional noticed that not like Part 29A(1) of the 1996 Act, Part 18(5) of the 2006 Act prescribes a 90-day timeline for arbitral proceedings with out imposing a penalty for delay or terminating the Council’s mandate, indicating the availability is listing, not obligatory.
Case Title:SREI EQUIPMENT FINANCE LIMITED VS TRINITY ALTERNATIVE INVESTMENT MANAGERS LIMITED
Case Quantity: AP-COM/1049/2024 IA GA-COM 1 of 2025 GA-COM 2 of 2025
The Calcutta Excessive Court docket bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar has held that at this stage, the petitioner is satisfactorily secured below the schedule to the deeds of hypothecation settlement. The respondent stays absolutely operational and continues its enterprise actions. There’s nothing within the pleadings to recommend that the respondent has tried to take away or alienate its belongings in a way that may render any future award in favour of the petitioner unenforceable or illusory.
The court docket famous that the petitioner’s declare of Rs. 53.61 crores being due is unsupported by any admission from the respondent. Whereas the petitioner valued sure investments at Rs. 12.41 crores, extra investments disclosed on this continuing have been valued at Rs. 41.04 crores. It additional noticed that though the petitioner disputes these valuations, no concrete calculations have been offered to disprove them. Additional examination would quantity to a mini-trial, and funding values are topic to market fluctuations. The cost on these investments was created consciously between skilled business entities, with no proof of malafide conduct by the respondent.
Case Title:WEST BENGAL INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. VS. TATA MOTORS LIMITED
Case Quantity: AP-COM/88/2024 IA No. GA No. 1 of 2025
The Calcutta Excessive Court docket bench of Justice Aniruddha Roy has held that when an software below Part 36(2) searching for unconditional keep of the award on the bottom of fraud or corruption is pending adjudication, the query of impleading the one who delivered the award doesn’t come up at such a untimely stage. Except the court docket, upon inspecting the applying, arrives at a prima facie discovering that the award was certainly procured by fraud or corruption, impleadment is neither crucial nor maintainable.
The court docket famous that on the outset, it seems that the moment software is premised on the Supreme Court docket’s judgments in Vinod Bhaiyalal Jain and Microsoft Company, each of which have been rendered within the context of Part 34 proceedings. Whereas a Part 34 court docket could assessment the award intimately inside its restricted jurisdiction, the grounds of fraud, corruption, or bias have to be adjudicated at that stage. For an unconditional keep below Part 36(2), the applicant should clearly set up fraud or corruption by the tribunal as outlined below Part 36(3); mere allegations of bias don’t suffice.
Case Title: DAMODAR VALLEY CORPORATION VS AKA LOGISTICS PRIVATE LIMITED
Case Quantity: AP-COM/178/2025
The Calcutta Excessive Court docket bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar has held that an Advocate who has accepted briefs from a regulation agency for unrelated shoppers can’t, by that reality alone, be deemed ineligible to behave as an Arbitrator in disputes involving events not personally identified to or represented by him, even if the identical regulation agency seems within the arbitration.
The Court docket famous that Part 12(5) of the mentioned Act gives that, however any prior settlement on the contrary, any particular person whose relationship with the events or counsel or the subject material of the dispute falls below any of the classes specified within the VIIth schedule, shall be ineligible to be appointed as an arbitrator.
It additional noticed that Schedule VII offers with the arbitrator’s relationship with events or counsel. Class 3 of the VIIth Schedule, gives that the arbitrator shall not symbolize the lawyer or the regulation agency, appearing as counsel for one of many events. Which signifies that the realized Arbitrator mustn’t have represented the regulation agency as its Advocate or counsel in any authorized continuing.
Case Title: M/S. CHOLAMANDALAM INVESTMENT AND FINANCE COMPANY LIMITED Versus SUJAN SEIKH
Case Quantity: FMA/251/2025 IA No: CAN/1/2025
The Calcutta Excessive Court docket bench of Justices Arijit Banerjee and Rai Chattopadhyay has held that the place an settlement between the events accommodates a transparent arbitration clause and disputes come up below that settlement, the Trial Court docket is sure to refer the events to arbitration. The query of whether or not such reference is suitable or not doesn’t come up, as Part 8(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is obligatory in nature.
The court docket noticed that the impugned order have to be put aside. For the reason that settlement accommodates a legitimate arbitration clause and disputes have arisen below it, the Trial Court docket was sure to refer the events to arbitration below Part 8(1) of the Arbitration Act. The query of it being acceptable or inappropriate does not come up in view of the language of Part 8(1) of the Arbitration Act, which is obligatory. As soon as a celebration applies earlier than submitting the primary substantive assertion, the Court docket should refer the matter to arbitration until it finds that no legitimate arbitration settlement exists.
Chhattisgarh Excessive Court docket
Case Title: Angelique Worldwide Restricted versus Union of India Ministry of Railways (Railway Board) and Ors.
Case Quantity: WPC No. 2946 of 2025
The Chhattisgarh Excessive Court docket bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru has held that reliefs just like these already sought earlier than the Arbitrator and subsequently earlier than the Business Court docket can’t be claimed earlier than the writ court docket, particularly when various efficacious treatments can be found earlier than the identical boards for searching for such reliefs.
The court docket famous that perusal of the report would present that there have been two Contract Agreements i.e. Contract Settlement dated 18.09.2017 as properly as Contract Settlement dated 26.04.2017 and the petitioner has challenged Contract Settlement dated 26.04.2017 earlier than the Sole Arbitrator, which was allowed vide order dated 15.03.2022 and the ultimate award was handed. It additional famous that the report displays that the respondents challenged the ultimate award dated 15.03.2022 by submitting Case No. Arb. MJC 06 of 2024, which was dismissed by the Business Court docket vide order dated 08.11.2024.
Delhi Excessive Court docket
Case Title: LATA YADAV versus SHIVAKRITI AGRO PVT. LTD & ORS.
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 696
The Delhi Excessive Court docket bench of Justice Amit Mahajan has held that the mere reference to sure belongings in a provisional attachment order doesn’t, by itself, oust the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal. Equally, the pendency of parallel investigations by the CBI or ED into allegations of fraud doesn’t bar the arbitrator from adjudicating the dispute. Arbitration proceedings can proceed independently, even when some elements of the subject material are below felony investigation.
The court docket famous that the scope of interference below Article 227 of the Structure is proscribed and have to be exercised sparingly. Although courts can assessment orders handed in arbitral proceedings, such interference is justified solely in distinctive circumstances the place obtrusive perversity is obvious. The Supreme Court docket in Deep Industries Ltd. v. ONGC (2020) held that Article 227 can’t be used to bypass the arbitration framework and ought to be invoked solely in uncommon circumstances. It additional noticed that merely alleging fraud doesn’t render a dispute non-arbitrable. In A. Ayyasamy v. A. Paramasivam (2016), the Supreme Court docket distinguished between easy and severe allegations of fraud, holding that solely severe allegations—these affecting the validity of the arbitration settlement itself—would bar arbitration.
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 715
The Delhi Excessive Court docket bench of Justice Ravinder Dudeja has held that if a correct software is filed below Part 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the Court docket should refer the events to arbitration and will reject the plaint below Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Civil Process Code, 1908 (CPC) as barred by regulation. Nonetheless, if no such software is filed and no prayer is made for reference to arbitration, the mere existence of an arbitration clause shouldn’t be enough to reject the plaint below Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
The court docket famous that the Supreme Court docket in Booz Allen and Hamilton Inc. v. SBI House Finance Ltd. (2011) laid down a five-factor take a look at for courts to find out whether or not to refer events to arbitration below Part 8 of the Arbitration Act. These embrace confirming the existence of a legitimate arbitration settlement, whether or not all events to the go well with are events to the settlement, if the disputes fall inside the settlement’s scope, and whether or not the applying below Part 8 was made earlier than the primary assertion on the substance of the dispute. Part 8 mandates referral to arbitration until the court docket finds no legitimate settlement exists.
Case Title: M/s MAHAVIR PRASAD GUPTA AND SONS versus GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 716
The Delhi Excessive Court docket bench of Justice Tejas Karia and Justice Vibhu Bakhru has held {that a} social gathering that unilaterally appoints an arbitrator shouldn’t be prohibited from difficult the award on the bottom that it violates Part 12(5) learn with the Seventh Schedule of the Arbitration Act. Mere train of the ability to make such an appointment doesn’t represent an categorical written waiver as required below the proviso to Part 12(5) of the Arbitration Act.
The court docket famous that unilateral appointment of an arbitrator by one social gathering is impermissible below Part 12(5) of the Arbitration Act, learn with the Seventh Schedule, because it raises justifiable doubts concerning the arbitrator’s independence or impartiality. Such an appointment is void ab initio, and any award handed by an ineligible arbitrator is unenforceable in regulation.
It additional noticed that Part 12(5) of the Arbitration Act overrides Part 4 and requires an categorical written waiver to validate an in any other case ineligible arbitrator’s appointment. Waiver by conduct or participation shouldn’t be enough. The Supreme Court docket in Bharat Broadband held such ineligibility is de jure, and the arbitrator’s mandate terminates robotically below Part 14(1)(a).Consenting to the extension of the mandate of the arbitrator below Part 29A(3) of the Act doesn’t represent a legitimate categorical waiver in writing as required below the proviso to Part 12(5) of the Act.
Case Title: INDRAPRASTHA GAS LIMITED versus M/S CHINTAMANI FOOD AND SNACKS
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 683
The Delhi Excessive Court docket Bench of Justice Sachin Datta has held that contentions concerning the applicability and relevance of an arbitration settlement are to be handled by the arbitrator and can’t be gone into on the stage of part 11 petition. As soon as the existence of arbitration settlement is not disputed, any dispute associated to the applicability of the settlement has to be dealt by the arbitrator. Additional, the court docket noticed that the arbitration settlement between the events contemplates that the appointment of the only Arbitrator shall be made out of a panel of three individuals chosen by the petitioner. This appointment process is not legitimate in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court docket in Central Organisation for Railway Electrification Vs. ECI SPIC SMO MCML (JV) A Joint Enterprise Firm (2024). It’s held that it’s incumbent on the court docket to appoint an unbiased sole arbitrator.
Case Title: R. SANTOSH versus ONE97 COMMUNICATIONS LTD
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 688
The Delhi Excessive Court docket bench of Justices Shalinder Kaur and Navin Chawla has held that when the suitable to file a written assertion is closed, an software below Part 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act searching for reference to arbitration shouldn’t be maintainable.
The court docket famous that the Respondent supported its declare by means of PW-1’s affidavit and documentary proof, together with the Ticketing Settlement , Addendum Settlement and assertion of accounts, and the termination discover. The Appellant didn’t cross-examine PW-1 on 12.12.2023, thus failing to contest both the testimony or the paperwork. This unchallenged proof is deemed proved, indicating the absence of any credible defence by the Appellant.
Case Title: Oil and Pure Gasoline Company Ltd. v. JSIW Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 692
The Delhi Excessive Court docket bench comprising Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tejas Karia has held that when the language of the contract is obvious, clear and unambiguous, recourse to inside aids of interpretation or extraneous supplies resembling negotiations and correspondence is impermissible. “Ignoring an specific clause of the contract or appearing opposite to the phrases of the contract quantities to patent illegality.”, the court docket held.
The Court docket additional noticed that when the language of Clause 3.4.1.5 of the GCC was plain, clear and unambiguous, the inner help of interpretation was impermissible. It held that the arbitral tribunal wrongly relied on negotiations and correspondence that have been explicitly excluded by the contract. “Ignoring an specific clause of the contract or appearing opposite to the phrases of the contract quantities to patent illegality”, the Court docket held.
Case Title: BALLARPUR INDUSTRIES LIMITED versus SG ENTERPRISES & ORS.
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 693
The Delhi Excessive Court docket bench of Justice Jyoti Singh has held that the clause in query certainly contemplates the appointment of an Arbitrator by mutual consent; nonetheless, within the occasion of failure, it vests the energy of appointing a Sole Arbitrator with the Managing Director of Respondent No. 1.
It additional held that the Firm appearing by means of its Managing Director could have curiosity within the end result of the dispute and subsequently, appointment of Sole Arbitrator might be immediately hit by the regulation laid down by the Supreme Court docket. Get together autonomy as additionally impartiality and independence of the Arbitrator appointed to adjudicate inter se disputes between the events are the foundational pillars of arbitration.
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 695
The Delhi Excessive Court docket bench comprising Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta has held that mere motion of file and alter in counsel because of administrative points doesn’t represent “enough trigger” to condone inordinate delay in submitting an enchantment below Part 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The court docket reiterated that for appeals below Part 37 that are ruled by Articles 116 and 117 of the Limitation Act or Part 13(1-A) of the Business Courts Act, a delay past 90 days, 30 days or 60 days, respectively, is to be condoned by the use of exception and never by the use of rule.
Case Title: M/S. Jaiprakash Hyundai Consortium v. M/S. SJVN Limited
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 679
Case Title: HINDUSTAN HYDRAULICS PVT. LTD versus UNION OF INDIA
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 681
The Delhi Excessive Court docket Bench of Justice Manoj Kunar Ohri has held that the petitioner can’t reap the benefits of obvious inconsequential errors and fumbles to problem the award. Inconsequential errors within the award can’t be a floor to problem in any other case even handed and reasoned award.
The court docket noticed that the respondent didn’t outrightly reject the machine, when it found the essential design deviation, which was identified by the RCF in its earliest deficiency checklist. Nonetheless, the mentioned deviation was referred to as out persistently in a number of letters, over the trial run of the machine. Additionally, the court docket famous that the respondent anticipated the petitioner to rectify the defects raised, together with the essential design deviation talked about above, however the identical couldn’t be achieved.
Gauhati Excessive Court docket
Case Title: M/S DRUCKGRAFEN INDIA LIMITED VERSUS THE STATE OF NAGALAND AND 2 ORS
Case Quantity: Arb.P./4/2024
The Gauhati Excessive Court docket bench of Justice Yarenjungla Longkumer has held that if an arbitrator shouldn’t be appointed inside 30 days of the demand by the different social gathering, the suitable to nominate shouldn’t be robotically forfeited. Nonetheless, such appointment have to be made after the 30-day interval however earlier than the opposite social gathering recordsdata an software below Part 11 of the Arbitration Act.
This is a petition below Sections 11(5) and 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of an arbitrator. The petitioner entered into an settlement dated 01.01.1997 with the Authorities of Nagaland for printing lottery tickets.
Gujarat Excessive Court docket
Case Title: YASH TEXTILES Versus VINAYAK FASHIONS
Case Quantity: R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2507 of 2017
The Gujarat Excessive Court docket bench of Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice D.N. Ray and has held that As soon as the Court docket lacked jurisdiction to entertain the Part 34 software—having been filed past the limitation prescribed below Part 34(3) and its proviso—any discovering on the validity of the arbitral award as void ab initio was with out authorized authority. Entertaining a time-barred software below Part 34 was a grave error of regulation on the a part of the realized Court docket. It additional mentioned that the respondent argued that the award was a nullity as a result of absence of an arbitration settlement and the unilateral appointment of the arbitrator by the Surat Adatiya Kapda Affiliation with out their consent. Nonetheless, these contentions concerning the validity of the arbitral course of can’t be entertained as a result of the Part 34 software difficult the award was filed past the statutory time restrict and is thus barred by limitation.
Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh Excessive Court docket
J&K High Court Resolves Arbitrator Fee Stalemate, Directs Centre To Deposit Fee As Per 4th Schedule Arbitration Act
Case-Title: Tarmat Ltd. Vs Union of India and others
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 247
In an order addressing the long-pending stalemate in an arbitration matter, the Jammu and Kashmir Excessive Court docket directed the Union of India to deposit the arbitrator’s payment as per the Fourth Schedule of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, enabling the pronouncement of the arbitral award. The difficulty earlier than the court docket was whether or not a government-prescribed inside payment construction for empanelled arbitrators might override the statutory payment scale within the Fourth Schedule of the 1996 Act. The Court docket directed the Union of India to deposit its share of the arbitrator’s payment with the Registrar Judicial, Jammu inside 30 days, to be stored in a set deposit, with out prejudice to its proper to contest the declare in acceptable proceedings later.
Kerala Excessive Court docket
Case Title:THE STATE OF KERALA VERSUS S. AJAYAKUMAR AND ORS.
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 368
The Kerela Excessive Court docket bench of Justice Syam Kumar V.M. and Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari has held that when the cost as a result of petitioner was made by the respondent pursuant to a court docket order explicitly directing it as full and remaining settlement of all liabilities, and the petitioner additionally issued a letter accepting the identical, he can’t subsequently declare that the letter was issued below duress or out of necessity.
The court docket famous that The petitioner’s writ petition involved claims below 5 building contracts, alleging breach by the respondents. Earlier writ petitions on the identical topic have been dismissed by this Court docket on the bottom that disputed questions of reality have been concerned, which required adjudication by means of civil treatments, not below Article 226. Subsequent writ appeals have been additionally dismissed. Regardless of this, the petitioner filed the current W.P.(C), searching for instructions for cost below Exts. P6 and P10 ‘awards’.
Case Title: M.I. Mohammed v. M/s. HLL Life Care Ltd. & Ors.
Case Quantity: AR No. 95 of 2025
The Kerala Excessive Court docket bench of Justice M.A. Abdul Hakhim has held that the place an arbitral award is put aside on the bottom that the appointment of the arbitrator was void ab initio and the arbitral proceedings are declared non est, the brand new arbitrator should provoke proceedings afresh. The query of admissibility of beforehand recorded proof is to be determined by the brand new arbitrator.
Karnataka Excessive Court docket
Case Title: Smt. Manjula & Anr. vs. Shriram Transport Finance Co Ltd & Ors.
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 199
The Karnataka Excessive Court docket bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj has held that an individual who’s the named Arbitrator in a discover issued below Part 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, can’t enter reference and move orders with out the different particular person consenting thereto or with out an order of appointment of Arbitrator by establishment or a Court docket below Part 11 of the Act.
The Court docket famous that neither social gathering positioned the arbitration settlement on report. When there was no settlement out there on report to point the existence or in any other case of an arbitration clause, the query of Shriram relying upon arbitration clause wouldn’t come up. Even assuming the arbitration settlement existed, the Court docket famous that the mentioned clause didn’t point out a named Arbitrator. Shriram had issued a discover dated 27-07-2019 nominating Respondent No. 2 as arbitrator. The Court docket discovered that there was no consent which was expressed by the Petitioners to the appointment of Respondent No. 2 as the only Arbitrator. It held that the appointment of the 2nd Respondent as an Arbitrator by Shriram was unilateral and thus not permissible, and the orders handed by the arbitrator have been non est.
Madhya Pradesh Excessive Court docket
Case Title: M/S TRICON ENERGY UK LIMITED THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY MR. SANTOSH KOLI Vs M/S KRITI INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LIMITED
Case Quantity: AC No. 60 of 2024
The Madhya Pradesh Excessive Court docket bench of Justice Subodh Abhyankar has held that an ex parte order could also be recalled when the involved social gathering seems later, complies with the court docket’s instructions, and the matter includes advanced authorized points requiring a good listening to from each side for an efficient adjudication.
The court docket noticed that though the non-applicant was initially proceeded ex-parte, they later appeared, filed detailed objections on maintainability, and complied with the Court docket’s route to deposit the quantity and supply safety. Given the advanced authorized points concerned and within the curiosity of justice, it was held that the non-applicant ought to be heard earlier than making the order dated 15.07.2024 absolute, albeit with acceptable prices for preliminary negligence.
Orissa Excessive Court docket
Case Title: M/s Odisha Mining Company Restricted Versus Union of India, Ministry of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises and Ors.
Case Quantity:W.P.(C) No.22236 OF 2014
The Orissa Excessive Court docket bench of Justice Ok.R. Mohapatra has held that when the MSME Council initiates arbitration following the termination of conciliation proceedings, any order handed by the Council concerning its jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute can solely be challenged below Part 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The aggrieved social gathering can’t invoke Article 227 of the Structure to hunt setting apart of an award handed below the MSMED Act.
Whereas referring to numerous judgments, the court docket held that in Kanwar Singh Saini, it was held that when a statute creates a proper and prescribes a selected discussion board for its enforcement, the treatment have to be sought solely below that statute. Equally, in M/s Silpi Industries, the Supreme Court docket clarified that the MSMED Act, being a particular laws, overrides the Arbitration Act.
It additional added that if the declare falls below the MSMED Act, the provider could method the designated authority, and any settlement to the opposite is void. The identical view was echoed by the Allahabad Excessive Court docket in Marsons Electrical Industries, stating that MSMED registration applies prospectively and can’t be given retrospective impact. Accordingly, Clause 9.20 of the contract, offering for jurisdiction, stands overridden by the MSMED Act.
Rajasthan Excessive Court docket
Case Title: The State of Rajasthan, by means of District Collector Pali. & Ors. vs. Sanwariya Infrastructure Non-public Restricted
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 195
The Rajasthan Excessive Court docket bench comprising Justice Avneesh Jhingan and Justice Bhuwan Goyal have held that an arbitral award which grants reliefs past the categorical phrases of the contract, together with compensation for losses and curiosity the place no such entitlement exists below the settlement, is patently unlawful and liable to be put aside below Part 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The Court docket noticed that as per the Settlement, the concession interval of 70 months was to start from the “Graduation Date”, which was outlined because the date on which the “bodily possession of the Venture website is delivered by GOR to the concessionaire”. Due to this fact, the graduation date might solely be reckoned from the date of complete possession of the undertaking website and never partial possession.
Title: Shekharchand Sacheti & Anr. v S.M.F.G. India House Finance Firm Restricted & Anr.
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 205
Rajasthan Excessive Court docket dominated that since the respondent was already conscious of and was not taken without warning concerning petitioner’s invocation of arbitration clause, their plea that the applying for appointment of arbitrator was not maintainable since no discover was served below Part 21 of the A&C Act 1996, lacked advantage.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand additionally reiterated the precept laid down within the case of M.D. Frozen Meals Exports Non-public Restricted & others v. Hero Fincorp Restricted that the SARFAESI Proceedings have been in the character of enforcement whereas arbitration was an adjudicatory proceedings. Therefore, each might proceed parallel.
The Court docket was listening to an software below Part 11 of the 1996 Act. The candidates had obtained mortgage from the respondent by mortgaging a 6318 sq ft of a 12000 sq ft. property below an settlement that had an arbitration clause. Applicant’s mortgage account was labeled as a Non-Performing Asset and proceedings below the SARFAESI Act have been initiated in opposition to them.
Telangana Excessive Court docket
Case Title:Dr. S. Abhilash vs Prasanth Busareddy
Case Number: CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.692 of 2023
Case Title: Ch. Punyamurthy vs Union of India
Case Number: ARBITRATION APPLICATION No.180 OF 2024
Case Title: M/S V.K.A. Constructions vs The State of Telangana
Case Number: WRIT PETITION No.956 OF 2025
Case Title: Urbanwoods Realty LLP vs Mrs. Uma Rastogi & Another
Case Number: ARBITRATION APPLICATION No.41 OF 2023
Case Title: M/s Excel Constructions vs M/s Bharat Biotech International Ltd
Case Number: I.A.NO.1 OF 2025 IN/AND CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.1620 OF 2025
Case Title: PCL Intertech Lenhydro Consortium vs Punjab National Bank
Case Number: Arbitration Application No.49 of 2024
Case Title: M/S Shriram Life Insurance coverage Firm Ltd. vs Mr. Sahil Khan
Case Quantity: ARBITRATION APPLICATION NOs.182 AND 199 OF 2024
The Telangana Excessive Court docket bench of Justice Ok. Lakshman has held {that a} substitute arbitrator should typically be appointed in the identical mode and method as the unique arbitrator. When the appointment of an earlier arbitrator was executed below a faulty arbitration clause or an illegal process was adopted, in such circumstances a correct recourse is to hunt appointment of a brand new arbitrator below part 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The court docket famous that the Supreme Court docket in SBI Common Insurance coverage Co. Ltd. v. Krish Spinning held that in mild of the Supreme Court docket’s observations in In Re: Interaction, the Court docket clarified that on the stage of appointing an arbitrator, the scope of inquiry is confined to a prima facie examination of the existence of an arbitration settlement. Due to this fact, the broader jurisdiction acknowledged in Vidya Drolia and NTPC v. SPML—permitting referral courts to reject ex facie non-arbitrable or frivolous disputes—can’t be mentioned to proceed submit In Re: Interaction.
