#Arbitration Act 1996

The Bombay High Court held that an assignee of ownership rights is not bound by an arbitration clause in a development agreement unless the arbitration agreement is expressly assigned or accepted. The court also ruled that limitation objections fall within the arbitral tribunal's jurisdiction under Section 16, not the Section 11 court's purview at the appointment stage.

The Delhi High Court held that for Section 11(6) applications, the limitation period begins only upon formal rejection of a claim, not from preliminary correspondence. The court also ruled that the mandatory mediation period under the contract must be excluded from the limitation calculation, appointing a sole arbitrator in a duty-free shop licence dispute with AAI.

The Delhi High Court reinstated the arbitral award, ruling that a claim of patent illegality fails when the award correctly interprets the contract and statutory provisions. This limits parties from overturning awards on that ground, reinforcing the narrow scope of judicial interference in arbitration.

Delhi High Court ruled Section 34 challenges to international commercial arbitral awards are limited to patent illegality, rejecting waiver-of-timeline arguments. The decision narrows judicial interference, reinforcing finality of cross-border awards. Parties must rely on these narrow grounds.

The Bombay High Court ruled that a party cannot obtain an interim mandatory injunction to revive a determinable contract; the dispute must proceed to arbitration, with the Rs 1 lakh caution money kept in escrow. This curtails injunctive relief in commercial contracts and reinforces arbitration clauses.

A Delhi High Court set aside a 2022 award, declaring it a nullity because the sole arbitrator had been appointed solely by one party without an express written waiver of the ineligibility bar under Section 12(5) of the Arbitration Act. The ruling makes clear that any such unilateral appointment invalidates the award, affecting parties relying on sole arbitrator clauses.

The Delhi High Court partially vacated the NHAI-Louis Berger award, finding that the tribunal’s grant of operation-and-maintenance relief exceeded the matters arbitrable under the contract and breached the equal-treatment rule of Section 18. The construction-payment portion of the award remains intact, signalling that arbitral tribunals cannot extend relief beyond the defined scope in infrastructure consultancy disputes.

Madhya Pradesh High Court appointed an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, ruling that threshold issues such as limitation and jurisdiction must be decided by the arbitrator under the doctrine of kompetenz-kompetenz. The decision reinforces the arbitral tribunal's authority to rule on its own jurisdiction, impacting parties in partnership disputes invoking arbitration clauses.

Bombay HC set aside an arbitral award that revived a prior award after an appellate tribunal's remand order, reinforcing judicial hierarchy and the fundamental policy of Indian arbitration law. The ruling underscores that arbitral tribunals lack jurisdiction to override appellate remand directions, limiting scope for Section 34 challenges to awards.

Bombay High Court holds that a Section 21 notice under the Arbitration Act remains valid even if it deviates from the arbitration agreement's procedural requirements, prioritizing substance over form. The ruling reinforces party autonomy in arbitration, ensuring disputes proceed to adjudication despite minor procedural lapses.

Bombay High Court holds that disputes relating to possession under licensor-licensee agreements fall exclusively under the Small Causes Court's jurisdiction, rendering arbitration clauses unenforceable. This ruling impacts commercial tenants and landlords seeking interim relief under the Arbitration Act, reinforcing the primacy of statutory jurisdiction over contractual arbitration.

Bombay High Court dismisses a Section 34 challenge, reinforcing that courts cannot re-examine arbitral awards unless the arbitrator’s interpretation is patently illegal or arbitrary. The ruling underscores the narrow scope of judicial review, protecting finality in commercial disputes and limiting interference to violations of public policy or fundamental legal errors.

Bombay High Court rules that arbitral awards must strictly adhere to contractual interest rate clauses under Section 31(7)(a) of the Arbitration Act. The court set aside an award granting 18% compounded interest, remanding the dispute for fresh arbitration, reinforcing that arbitrators cannot override agreed terms even under judicial review.

Bombay High Court reinforces that a memorandum of understanding (MOU) for redevelopment lacks binding force unless followed by a final Development Agreement and government NOC. The ruling underscores the limited judicial scrutiny under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, offering clarity for developers and housing societies in contract disputes.

Bombay High Court holds that arbitral awards passed unilaterally without consent or court order under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act are void ab initio. The court quashed the award and permitted fresh arbitration proceedings, excluding the limitation period, setting a precedent for invalidating ex parte arbitral appointments.