When Two Or More Courts Have Jurisdiction, Parties' Choice Of Court Prevails Even If Cause Of Action Arises Elsewhere: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court held that when parties to a contract have agreed to exclusive jurisdiction of a particular court, suit instituted in other courts is not maintainable even if the cause of action has arisen in other jurisdiction. Setting aside the interim injunction granted by the commercial court at Bengaluru, the Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and...

Even Non-Signatory Family Members Are Bound By Consent Award Executed By Heads Of Family: Gujarat High Court

The Gujarat High Court held that once heads of two families amicably resolve disputes through composite family arrangement and a consent arbitral award, individual family members cannot later challenge the award even if they were non-signatories on grounds of non-receipt of a signed copy of the award or lack of individual consent. A bench comprising Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal...

Bombay High Court Directs WhiteHat Jr To Secure Rs 80.35 Lakh Arbitral Award In Favor Of Former Employee

The Bombay High Court has recently ordered WhiteHat Education Technology Pvt. Ltd. (popularly known as WhiteHat Jr), a subsidiary of embattled ed-tech Byju's, to secure an arbitration award of Rs 80.35 lakh in favour of its former employee, Prashant Singh.The award was granted in an employment dispute following Singh's sudden termination from the company. The Court also directed the...

Proceedings Can Be Terminated U/S 32(2)(C) Of A&C Act When Underlying Contract Is Unenforceable: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court upheld an arbitral award terminating proceedings under section 32(2)(c) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) on the ground that an agreement to sell (ATS) between the parties was unforceable for being unregistered and unstamped under Uttar Pradesh law. Justice Amit Bansal held that an agreement concerning transfer of sub-leasedhold rights...

Terminating Arbitrator's Mandate Over Mere Allegations Of Corruption Would Set Dangerous Precedent: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court held that mere allegations of corruption or pendency of an unverified complaint against an arbitrator cannot justify termination of arbitrator's mandate under section 14 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act). Justice Jyoti Singh held that “mandate of an Arbitrator cannot be terminated solely on the basis of unsubstantiated allegations...

Clause In Insurance Policy Shortening Limitation Period Is Void U/S 28 Contract Act: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court restored an arbitral award in favor of M/s H.P. Spinning Mills Pvt. Ltd.(Appellant) which was set aside 16 years ago holding that clause of the insurance policy which required claims to be made within 12 months from the date of loss was void and unforceable under section 28 of the Indian Contract Act. The court held that the Single Judge erred in relying on...

'Higher Credence Is Given To Award Passed After Detailed Pre-Arbitral Process': Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court has held that arbitral awards passed after a detailed pre-arbitral process contractually agreed upon by the parties deserve a higher degree of credibility and judicial deference. The Court refused to grant an unconditional stay on the execution of an arbitral award in favour of the contractor, holding that mere disagreement with the arbitral tribunal's findings does...

CA-Certified Audited Statements Are Valid Proof Of Actual Expenditure: Delhi High Court Partly Upholds Arbitral Award Against NHAI

The Delhi High Court dismissed a petition under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) filed by National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) against an arbitral award passed in favor of Hindustan Construction Company Ltd. (HCC). The court further held that the arbitrator's award of compensation for expenses incurred during extended time...

'Unrelated Party To Contract Cannot Be Regarded As Veritable Party To Arbitration Agreement': Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court has held that an unrelated third party to a contract cannot be treated as a “veritable party” to the arbitration agreement and hence cannot be compelled to participate in the arbitral proceedings. The Court reiterated that the doctrine enabling non-signatories to be treated as parties to an arbitration agreement applies only where there exists a close relationship,...

Arbitration Quarterly Digest: July-September 2025

Supreme Court Clause Saying Arbitration "May Be Sought" Doesn't Constitute A Binding Arbitration Agreement : Supreme Court Cause Title: BGM AND M-RPL-JMCT (JV) VERSUS EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 731 The Supreme Court recently held that a clause in an agreement that arbitration "may be sought" to resolve disputes between the parties will not...

'Big Corporations Must Adopt Reasonable Litigation Policy Against Small Enterprises': Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court dismissed an appeal under section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) filed by Mahindra Defence Systems Ltd. challenging an arbitral award passed by the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Facilitation Council in favour of Rajana Industries holding that the award was reasoned, fair and free from...

Application U/S 29A Of A&C Act Is Not Maintainable After Termination Of Proceedings Following Arbitrator's Withdrawal: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court held that section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) can be invoked only when the proceedings are pending. It cannot be invoked when the arbitral tribunal has become functus officio. Justice N. Anand Venkatesh held that “in the case in hand, the proceedings were abandoned and consequently stood terminated as was explained...