Arbitration Weekly Round-Up: 16th June
Bombay Excessive Courtroom
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 Courtroom has upheld an arbitral award granting damages amounting to 538.9 crore to Kochi Cricket Non-public Restricted (“KCPL”), the guardian firm of defunct IPL franchise Kochi Tuskers Kerala. It was held that the Courtroom can not act as a Courtroom of First Attraction and delve right into a fact-finding train by revisiting and re-appreciating the document 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 details and paperwork on document in addition to the proof recorded.
Calcutta Excessive Courtroom
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Case Quantity: A.P.-COM No.296 of 2024 (Outdated No. A.P. 179 of 2023)
The Calcutta Excessive Courtroom bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya has held that after 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 accomplish that 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 resolve the matter on deserves.
The courtroom famous that the timeline stipulated below Part 29A of the 1996 Act will not be relevant to an arbitral continuing below the 2006 Act. Quite, 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 Courtroom 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 may be nothing within the pleadings to recommend that the respondent has tried to take away or alienate its property in a fashion that will render any future award in favour of the petitioner unenforceable or illusory.
The courtroom 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 industrial 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 Courtroom bench of Justice Aniruddha Roy has held that when an utility below Part 36(2) looking 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 courtroom, 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 courtroom famous that on the outset, it seems that the moment utility is premised on the Supreme Courtroom’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 courtroom could evaluate 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.
Delhi Excessive Courtroom
Case Title: INDRAPRASTHA GAS LIMITED versus M/S CHINTAMANI FOOD AND SNACKS
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 683
The Delhi Excessive Courtroom 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 courtroom noticed that the arbitration settlement between the events contemplates that the appointment of the only real Arbitrator shall be made out of a panel of three individuals chosen by the petitioner. This appointment process is now not legitimate in view of the judgment of the Supreme Courtroom 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 courtroom to appoint an impartial sole arbitrator.
Case Title: R. SANTOSH versus ONE97 COMMUNICATIONS LTD
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 688
The Delhi Excessive Courtroom bench of Justices Shalinder Kaur and Navin Chawla has held that after the correct to file a written assertion is closed, an utility below Part 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act looking for reference to arbitration isn’t maintainable.
The courtroom 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 Fuel Company Ltd. v. JSIW Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 692
The Delhi Excessive Courtroom bench comprising Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tejas Karia has held that when the language of the contract is apparent, clear and unambiguous, recourse to inner aids of interpretation or extraneous supplies reminiscent of negotiations and correspondence is impermissible. “Ignoring an express clause of the contract or performing opposite to the phrases of the contract quantities to patent illegality.”, the courtroom held.
The Courtroom noticed that when the language of Clause 3.4.1.5 of the GCC was plain, clear and unambiguous, the interior assist 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 express clause of the contract or performing opposite to the phrases of the contract quantities to patent illegality”, the Courtroom held.
Case Title: BALLARPUR INDUSTRIES LIMITED versus SG ENTERPRISES & ORS.
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 693
The Delhi Excessive Courtroom 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 performing by means of its Managing Director can have curiosity within the end result of the dispute and subsequently, appointment of Sole Arbitrator will probably be straight hit by the legislation laid down by the Supreme Courtroom. Celebration autonomy as additionally impartiality and independence of the Arbitrator appointed to adjudicate inter se disputes between the events are the foundational pillars of arbitration.
Case Title: Union of India v. M/s Rajiv Aggarwal (Engineers and Contractors)
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 695
The Delhi Excessive Courtroom bench comprising Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta has held that mere motion of file and alter in counsel resulting from administrative points doesn’t represent “adequate trigger” to condone inordinate delay in submitting an attraction below Part 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The courtroom 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 Industrial 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.
Gauhati Excessive Courtroom
Case Title: M/S DRUCKGRAFEN INDIA LIMITED VERSUS THE STATE OF NAGALAND AND 2 ORS
Case Quantity: Arb.P./4/2024
The Gauhati Excessive Courtroom bench of Justice Yarenjungla Longkumer has held that if an arbitrator isn’t appointed inside 30 days of the demand by the different get together, the correct to nominate isn’t robotically forfeited. Nonetheless, such appointment have to be made after the 30-day interval however earlier than the opposite get together information an utility 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 Courtroom
Case Title: YASH TEXTILES Versus VINAYAK FASHIONS
Case Quantity: R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2507 of 2017
The Gujarat Excessive Courtroom bench of Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice D.N. Ray and has held that As soon as the Courtroom lacked jurisdiction to entertain the Part 34 utility—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 utility below Part 34 was a grave error of legislation on the a part of the realized Courtroom.
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 utility difficult the award was filed past the statutory time restrict and is thus barred by limitation.
Kerala Excessive Courtroom
Case Title: M.I. Mohammed v. M/s. HLL Life Care Ltd. & Ors.
Case Quantity: AR No. 95 of 2025
The Kerala Excessive Courtroom 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.
Madhya Pradesh Excessive Courtroom
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 Courtroom bench of Justice Subodh Abhyankar has held that an ex parte order could also be recalled when the involved get together seems later, complies with the courtroom’s instructions, and the matter entails advanced authorized points requiring a good listening to from each side for an efficient adjudication.
The courtroom noticed that though the non-applicant was initially proceeded ex-parte, they later appeared, filed detailed objections on maintainability, and complied with the Courtroom’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.
Telangana Excessive Courtroom
Case Title: Ch. Punyamurthy vs Union of India
Case Quantity: ARBITRATION APPLICATION No.180 OF 2024
The Telangana Excessive Courtroom bench of Justice Okay Lakshman has held that mere passage of time doesn’t bar arbitration if the arbitration clause stays legitimate. The Limitation for the function of submitting the applying below part 11(6) of the Arbitration Act commences from the date when request for initiating arbitration is rejected. It additional noticed that in Aslam Ismail Khan Deshmukh v. ASAP Fluids Pvt. Ltd., the Supreme Courtroom held that the limitation interval for initiating arbitration commences from the date of rejection of the arbitration request. Because the respondents rejected the applicant’s request on 25.07.2022, the current petition is nicely inside the limitation interval.
Case Title: M/S V.Okay.A. Constructions vs The State of Telangana
Case Quantity: WRIT PETITION No.956 OF 2025
The Telangana Excessive Courtroom bench of Justice Okay. Lakshman has held that the query of whether or not a specific contract is a works contract or not is for the MSME Council to resolve, and the dispute can’t be determined below writ jurisdiction.
The courtroom famous that in Nationwide Thermal Energy Corpn. Ltd. v. Siemens Atkeingesellschaft (2007) the Supreme Courtroom held that if the arbitral tribunal decides its jurisdiction below Part 16 and holds that it has no jurisdiction, then such order is appealable.
Case Title: Urbanwoods Realty LLP vs Mrs. Uma Rastogi & One other
Case Quantity: ARBITRATION APPLICATION No.41 OF 2023
The Telangana Excessive Courtroom bench of Justice Okay. Lakshman has held that in case of interconnected agreements, the place the mom settlement clearly and unequivocally refers the disputes to arbitration, mere use of ‘could’ within the arbitration clause of considered one of the ancillary agreements is not going to defeat the intention to arbitrate.
The courtroom famous that the Supreme Courtroom in Interaction Between Arbitration Agreements below Arbitration, 1996 & Stamp Act, 1899, In re held that the Referral Courtroom at Part 11 stage shouldn’t look at or impound an unstamped or insufficiently stamped instrument, however relatively go away it for the dedication by the Arbitral Tribunal. Any objections in relation to the stamping of the settlement fall inside the ambit of the Arbitral Tribunal. It additional famous that in SBI Common Insurance coverage Co. Ltd. v. Krish Spinning the Supreme Courtroom held that with the enactment of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the doctrine of separability was expressly acknowledged.
Case Title: M/s Excel Constructions vs M/s Bharat Biotech Worldwide Ltd
Case Quantity: I.A.NO.1 OF 2025 IN/AND CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.1620 OF 2025
The Telangana Excessive Courtroom bench of Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice B.R. Madhusudhan Raohas has held that the award holder might be allowed to withdraw the quantity deposited by the award debtor in pursuance of keep on the execution of the award. The award holder can’t be prohibited from withdrawing the quantity solely on the bottom that the award debtor could succeed within the attraction below part 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
It additional famous that because it stands, the Award-holder has not acquired the advantage of the Award dated 19.09.2017, even after practically 8 years, as a result of keep on its execution. Regardless of the respondent depositing ₹1,18,50,000 (50% of the Award quantity), the Award-holder has not been allowed to withdraw any portion of it. The courtroom additional noticed that the Award-holder now seeks permission to withdraw ₹59,25,000 (25% of the Award quantity) and is prepared to furnish safety for the remaining 25%, successfully looking for entry to solely half of the deposited quantity whereas securing the stability.
Case Title: PCL Intertech Lenhydro Consortium vs Punjab Nationwide Financial institution
Case Quantity: Arbitration Utility No.49 of 2024
The Telangana Excessive Courtroom bench of Justice N.V. Shravan Kumar has held that when the mandate of an arbitrator terminates below Part 15 of the Arbitration Act, a substitute arbitrator have to be appointed in accordance with the unique process agreed upon by the events. In such circumstances, the courtroom can not appoint a brand new arbitrator below Part 11, as the suitable course is to nominate a substitute following the mechanism below Part 15(2), not provoke a recent appointment course of.
The courtroom famous that within the Applicant’s letter dated 19.06.2020, the Financial institution was knowledgeable that the aim of the Escrow Settlement had been fulfilled and was requested to take crucial steps to forestall additional unintended transactions, together with submitting transaction particulars for record-keeping.
It additional added that nonetheless, the letter contained no express route to shut the Escrow Account. In distinction, Respondent No.3’s letter dated 25.06.2020 clearly instructed closure of the account, citing achievement of function and requesting termination of the Escrow Settlement below Clause 13.3.
