Arbitration Weekly Round-Up: [23rd June-29th June 2025]

High Courts Bombay High Court Contractor Cannot Be Denied Payment For Extra Work Approved By Railways Through Their Actions: Bombay High Court Case Title: Union of India Through The General Manager Central Railway Versus PLR HC RBR JV Case Number: COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION PETITION NO.51 OF 2024 The Bombay High Court bench of Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan has held that a contractor cannot be denied payment for extra work that, while beyond the original scope of the agreement, was clearly consented to by the other party through its conduct. When such work is accepted, measured, and not objected to contemporaneously, the benefiting party cannot later claim it was beyond the contract's scope. To allow this would amount to unjust enrichment. The court noted that the work was executed in line with the Agreement under the active supervision of Railways officials, especially during the Covid-19 lockdown. Extensions were granted based on ground realities. Despite alleging deficiencies, the Railways made no counterclaim in arbitration. Joint measurements, approved RA Bills, and prior conduct confirmed acceptance of excess work. It observed that the Arbitral Tribunal rightly held that the Railways' conduct indicated consensual and documented expansion of work, and it could not rely on the absence of a formal amendment to deny payment. The Tribunal's findings are reasonable, well-supported, and cannot be faulted. Chhattisgarh High Court Reliefs Similar To Those Sought Before Arbitrator & Commercial Court Can't Be Claimed Before Writ Court: Chhattisgarh High Court Case Title: Angelique International Limited versus Union of India Ministry of Railways (Railway Board) and Ors. Case Number: WPC No. 2946 of 2025 The Chhattisgarh High Court bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru has held that reliefs similar to those already sought before the Arbitrator and subsequently before the Commercial Court cannot be claimed before the writ court, especially when alternative efficacious remedies are available before the same forums for seeking such reliefs. The court noted that perusal of the record would show that there were two Contract Agreements i.e. Contract Agreement dated 18.09.2017 as well as Contract Agreement dated 26.04.2017 and the petitioner has challenged Contract Agreement dated 26.04.2017 before the Sole Arbitrator, which was allowed vide order dated 15.03.2022 and the final award was passed. It further noted that the record reflects that the respondents challenged the final award dated 15.03.2022 by filing Case No. Arb. MJC 06 of 2024, which was dismissed by the Commercial Court vide order dated 08.11.2024. Delhi High Court Jurisdiction Of Arbitral Tribunal Continues Despite Provisional Attachment Of Assets Under PMLA Or Parallel Proceedings: Delhi High Court Case Title: LATA YADAV versus SHIVAKRITI AGRO PVT. LTD & ORS. Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 696 The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Amit Mahajan has held that the mere reference to certain assets in a provisional attachment order does not, by itself, oust the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal. Similarly, the pendency of parallel investigations by the CBI or ED into allegations of fraud does not bar the arbitrator from adjudicating the dispute. Arbitration proceedings can continue independently, even when some aspects of the subject matter are under criminal investigation. The court noted that the scope of interference under Article 227 of the Constitution is limited and must be exercised sparingly. Though courts can review orders passed in arbitral proceedings, such interference is justified only in exceptional cases where glaring perversity is evident. The Supreme Court in Deep Industries Ltd. v. ONGC (2020) held that Article 227 cannot be used to bypass the arbitration framework and should be invoked only in rare circumstances. It further observed that merely alleging fraud does not render a dispute non-arbitrable. In A. Ayyasamy v. A. Paramasivam (2016), the Supreme Court distinguished between simple and serious allegations of fraud, holding that only serious allegations—those affecting the validity of the arbitration agreement itself—would bar arbitration. Plaint Can't Be Rejected Under O.VII R.11 Of CPC Due To Arbitration Clause Unless Application U/S 8 Of A&C Act Is Filed: Delhi High Court Case Title: DIN DAYAL AGRAWAL HUF versus CAPRISO FINANCE LTD Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 715 The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Ravinder Dudeja has held that if a proper application is filed under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the Court must refer the parties to arbitration and may reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) as barred by law. However, if no such application is filed and no prayer is made for reference to arbitration, the...

Arbitration Weekly Round-Up: [23rd June-29th June 2025]

Mohd Talha Hasan

Tags