#Public Policy

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.

The J&K High Court upheld the arbitral award, applying Section 14 Limitation Act to remove prior writ and LPA time from the three-year limitation period. It barred the appellants from challenging the arbitration they initiated and capped interest on the award at 6% per annum.

The Delhi High Court rejected the Section 34 challenge to the 2018 arbitral award on the Safdarjung Tomb illumination contract, reiterating that awards can be set aside only on the narrow grounds enumerated in the Arbitration Act. This reinforces limited judicial interference, affecting parties seeking to overturn commercial arbitration outcomes.

MP High Court sets aside an arbitral award for overburden charges, ruling that initiating arbitration seven years after the dispute arose renders the claim barred by limitation. The decision underscores that contractual disputes must be adjudicated within prescribed timelines to avoid forfeiture of claims under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.

Rajasthan High Court holds that a shift in government outsourcing policy cannot abruptly terminate long-term contractual workers without offering reemployment or following due process. The ruling reinforces pay protection and procedural fairness, mandating that policy changes respect workers' legitimate expectations under service law.

Tripura High Court reinforces that courts cannot interfere with arbitral awards merely due to lost documents or re-examine evidence under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. The ruling clarifies that judicial review is confined to procedural irregularities or public policy violations, not factual re-assessment, impacting arbitration enforcement across commercial disputes.

The Chhattisgarh High Court has ruled that when a state entity admits a contractual payment obligation, withholding it entitles the claimant to statutory interest at 6% from the date of contract completion, even without an explicit claim for interest. This reinforces that delayed payment in public contracts is not a discretionary matter but a legal wrong triggering automatic interest, strengthening claimants' position in arbitration enforcement.

Calcutta High Court ruled that an arbitral award lacking a signed copy delivered to parties is void ab initio, rendering it unenforceable. The court upheld fraud and patent illegality where no evidence of arbitration proceedings existed, setting aside awards marred by procedural irregularities and internal contradictions.

The Madras High Court ruled that an arbitration award based on a champertous agreement-where a third party funds litigation in exchange for a share of proceeds-is unlawful and contrary to public policy under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. This decision reinforces that courts will not enforce awards tainted by agreements that violate legal or ethical standards, impacting commercial disputes involving third-party funding arrangements.

The Bombay High Court enforced five foreign arbitral awards despite conflicting arbitration clauses, holding that party autonomy and commercial pragmatism prevail over technical defects under Section 48 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The ruling underscores that Indian courts will not refuse enforcement merely on procedural discrepancies if the awards align with the parties' substantive intent. This decision reinforces the pro-enforcement stance under the Act, benefiting international commercial arbitration stakeholders.

Delhi High Court holds that CBSE cannot retrospectively withdraw Additional Subject eligibility for 2025 Class XII passouts who relied on longstanding policy.

Delhi High Court sets aside arbitral award for failing to explain denial of interest and costs, affirming that unreasoned awards conflict with public policy under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act.

Bombay High Court holds that breach of RBI guidelines does not render loan contracts void under Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act; borrowers remain liable for repayment.