Supreme Court Weekly Digest April 24 - 30, 2026

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 16, Section 16(5), Section 16(6), Section 34, and Section 37(2) – Maintainability of Section 34 application against rejection of Section 16 plea – When an Arbitrator rejects an application filed under Section 16(2) or 16(3) challenging the jurisdiction of the Tribunal (such as on the ground of limitation), the aggrieved party cannot immediately file an application under Section 34 to set aside that order - The statutory drill under Section 16 dictates that upon rejection of a jurisdictional plea, the Arbitral Tribunal shall continue with the arbitral proceedings and make an arbitral award - The party aggrieved by such rejection can only test its validity after the final arbitral award is passed, by moving an application under Section 34 against the final award - Piecemeal challenges impermissible – Entertaining a Section 34 application or a subsequent Section 37 appeal against a pre-award rejection order under Section 16(2) is erroneous, unsustainable, and does violence to the scheme of the Arbitration Act - Under Section 37(2), an appeal lies directly only if the Arbitrator accepts/upholds the plea of lack of jurisdiction and puts an end to the proceedings. [Distinguished from Indian Farmers Fertilizer Cooperative Limited vs. Bhadra Products (2018) 2 SCC 534; Paras 8 – 17] MCM Worldwide v. Construction Industry Development Council, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 440 : 2026 INSC 425 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 9 — Threshold for Grant of Interim Relief - While the remedy is available, the threshold for granting interim relief under Section 9 will be higher in the case of an unsuccessful party - In rare and compelling cases, permitting such a party to invoke Section 9 prevents irreversible or irreparable prejudice and preserves the efficacy of the challenge proceedings - Courts must exercise care, caution, and circumspection while dealing with such applications. [Paras 49 - 60, 62] Home Care Retail Marts Pvt. Ltd. v. Haresh N Sangavi, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 425 : 2026 INSC 415 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 9 vs Section 36 — Post-Award Interim Relief to Unsuccessful Party — Maintainability - A petition under Section 9 of the Act at the post-award stage, by a party that has lost in the arbitral proceedings and has no enforceable award in its favour, is maintainable in law - Any party to an arbitration agreement, including an unsuccessful party, may invoke Section 9 at the post-award stage before the award is enforced - The statutory framework under Section 9, commencing with the expression "a party", draws no distinction between a successful and an unsuccessful party, and its meaning cannot be contextually modulated or varied depending upon the outcome of the arbitral proceedings. [Paras 29 - 33, 50-62] Home Care Retail Marts Pvt. Ltd. v. Haresh N Sangavi, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 425 : 2026 INSC 415 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 9 vs Sections 34 & 36 — Distinct Spheres of Operation - Sections 34 and 36 provide remedies against an award or a stay thereof, whereas Section 9 ensures protection of the subject-matter or the amount in dispute - The mere availability of recourse under Section 34 or a stay under Section 36(2) cannot operate as a bar to seeking protection under Section 9 - Denying interim relief under Section 9 would leave an unsuccessful party entirely remediless, with no forum available to protect the subject-matter even if the award is stayed and potentially liable to be set aside. [Paras 42, 43] Home Care Retail Marts Pvt. Ltd. v. Haresh N Sangavi, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 425 : 2026 INSC 415 Bail - Right to Speedy Trial - The petitioner was arrested on 07.03.2017 in a murder case involving Sections 147, 148, 149, 120-B, and 302 IPC - Charge sheet was filed and the case was committed to Sessions Court - Trial remained pending even after almost nine years of custody. The High Court rejected the bail application, relying on X v. State of Rajasthan, 2024 INSC 909, observing that once trial commences, bail should not normally be granted. The Supreme Court described the High Court's order as “very shocking” and “very disappointing”. The High Court misconstrued the judgment in X v. State of Rajasthan. The said judgment does not lay down an absolute rule against grant of bail after trial begins. The length of custody and delay in trial remain paramount considerations. Gravity of the offence cannot justify indefinite detention of an undertrial when the delay in trial is not attributable to the accused. The Court granted bail without awaiting the State's response, holding that the infringement of Article 21 was apparent on the face of the record. The petitioner was directed to be released on bail forthwith, subject to terms and conditions to be imposed by the Trial Court if not required in any other case. Vaibhav Singh v. State of...

Supreme Court Weekly Digest April 24 - 30, 2026

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Supreme Court Weekly Digest April 24 - 30, 2026

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers