#international commercial arbitration

The Delhi High Court held that an arbitral award granting 9% interest on a Performance Bank Guarantee from the date of invocation violated public policy under Section 34(2)(b)(ii) where the contract expressly excluded interest under Clause 13(2). The court set aside this portion of the award while upholding the rejection of the delayed shipment claim. The ruling reinforces that arbitrators cannot rewrite contractual terms on interest, and such overreach renders an award contrary to fundamental policy of Indian law.

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 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.

Bombay High Court rules that continuation of post-award interim protection, such as a bank guarantee, under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act demands proof of 'exceptional circumstances'-not merely an arguable challenge to the award. The judgment reinforces the binding nature of consent terms and mandates full disclosure in discretionary proceedings, limiting the scope of post-award relief for parties seeking to extend interim measures.

The Bombay High Court has ruled that the domestic ground of patent illegality under Section 34(2A) of the Arbitration Act cannot be invoked to challenge awards in international commercial arbitrations seated in India, reinforcing the pro-enforcement stance under Part I of the Act. This clarifies a critical jurisdictional boundary, shielding foreign-party arbitrations from domestic judicial overreach and aligning India’s practice with global arbitration norms.

Madhya Pradesh High Court rules that a High Court lacks inherent jurisdiction to appoint an arbitrator in international commercial arbitration under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The court set aside the arbitral award, emphasizing that such appointments are a nullity, impacting parties involved in cross-border disputes governed by the Act.

The Bombay High Court has ruled that arbitral awards in international commercial arbitration may be partially set aside under Section 34 when distinct claims are legally separable, upholding USD 43,500.25 for non-supply while invalidating the rest due to patent illegality. This reinforces the principle that courts must not overturn entire awards for isolated defects, protecting parties with valid claims in complex multi-issue disputes.