Arbitration Weekly Round-Up: [23rd June-29th June 2025]
Bombay Excessive Court docket
Case Title: Union of India Via The Basic 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 additional work that, whereas past the unique scope of the settlement, was clearly consented to by the opposite celebration via its conduct. When such work is accepted, measured, and never objected to contemporaneously, the benefiting celebration can not 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 according to the Settlement below the lively 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 growth of labor, and it couldn’t depend on the absence of a proper modification to disclaim cost. The Tribunal’s findings are affordable, well-supported, and can’t be faulted.
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 much like these already sought earlier than the Arbitrator and subsequently earlier than the Industrial Court docket can’t be claimed earlier than the writ court docket, particularly when different efficacious cures can be found earlier than the identical boards for searching for such reliefs.
The court docket famous that perusal of the document would present that there have been two Contract Agreements i.e. Contract Settlement dated 18.09.2017 as effectively 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 document 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 Industrial 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 facets of the subject material are below prison investigation.
The court docket famous that the scope of interference below Article 227 of the Structure is restricted and should be exercised sparingly. Although courts can overview orders handed in arbitral proceedings, such interference is justified solely in distinctive circumstances the place evident perversity is clear. 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 must 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 should reject the plaint below Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Civil Process Code, 1908 (CPC) as barred by legislation. Nonetheless, if no such software is filed and no prayer is made for reference to arbitration, the mere existence of an arbitration clause is just not adequate 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 embody confirming the existence of a sound arbitration settlement, whether or not all events to the swimsuit 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 except 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} celebration that unilaterally appoints an arbitrator is just not 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 specific 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 celebration 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 legislation.
It additional noticed that Part 12(5) of the Arbitration Act overrides Part 4 and requires an specific written waiver to validate an in any other case ineligible arbitrator’s appointment. Waiver by conduct or participation is just not adequate. The Supreme Court docket in Bharat Broadband held such ineligibility is de jure, and the arbitrator’s mandate terminates mechanically 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 sound specific waiver in writing as required below the proviso to Part 12(5) of the Act.
Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh Excessive Court docket
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 problem earlier than the court docket was whether or not a government-prescribed inner 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 saved in a hard and fast 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 because of the petitioner was made by the respondent pursuant to a court docket order explicitly directing it as full and ultimate settlement of all liabilities, and the petitioner additionally issued a letter accepting the identical, he can not 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 development 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 via civil cures, 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’.
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 celebration can not invoke Article 227 of the Structure to hunt setting apart of an award handed below the MSMED Act.
Whereas referring to varied 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 should 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 might 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.
Telangana Excessive Court docket
Case Title:Dr. S. Abhilash vs Prasanth Busareddy
Case Quantity: CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.692 of 2023
The Telangana Excessive Court docket bench of Sri Justice P. Sam Koshy and Sri Justice N. Tukaramji has held that when a celebration, in its reply to a Part 8 petition below the Arbitration Act, has expressly denied the existence or validity of the agreements containing the arbitration clause by terming them null and void, such agreements can not subsequently be relied upon by the identical celebration because the foundation to hunt reference of the disputes to arbitration.
The court docket on the outset famous that Part 8 of the Arbitration Act mandates {that a} judicial authority should refer events to arbitration if there exists a sound arbitration settlement and one of many events applies for reference earlier than submitting their first substantive assertion. To find out the existence of such an settlement, Part 7 turns into related. It defines an arbitration settlement as a written settlement to submit disputes to arbitration, both as a clause in a contract or a separate settlement.
