Arbitration Intelligence India | Case Study : Cairn Energy vs India

The proposal to introduce an Appellate Arbitral Tribunal (AAT) into India’s arbitration architecture, most prominently reflected in the Draft Arbitration & Conciliation (Amendment) Bill, 2024, has rekindled debate over the proper balance between party autonomy, finality, institutional quality, and judicial supervision. Proponents portray an AAT as an institutional innovation that would enhance the quality of awards, promote consistency, and reduce the burden on courts. Critics warn that an appellate layer risks destroying arbitration’s comparative advantage by permitting merits review, increasing costs and delay, and departing from the international norm of limited judicial interference.

The Hon’ble Bombay High Court (“High Court”) in its judgment dated 20.07.2026 in Reliance Asset Reconstruction Co. Ltd. vs. Hiroo Hotchand Advani (Commercial Appeal (L) Nos. 14725 and 15441 of 2026), provided much needed clarity on a pertinent issue, being, whether a party aggrieved by an executing court's order in arbitration proceedings can appeal that order under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (“CCA”), or whether the right of appeal depends on the order fitting within the narrow categories carved out under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Arbitration Act”).

Document production in arbitration has traditionally been a contentious and resource-intensive phase, particularly in complex international commercial disputes. As arbitration solidifies its role as the preferred mechanism for resolving cross-border disputes, the imperative for efficient, transparent, and predictable disclosure procedures has become increasingly evident. In the Indian context, the arbitral landscape has undergone significant reform in recent years, with the enactment and amendment of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 19961, seeking to align domestic practices with internationally recognized standards.

Arbitration has long been heralded as the faster, more flexible alternative to litigation. Parties choose it to avoid the procedural labyrinths and backlog of national courts, expecting a swift resolution delivered by subject-matter experts. Yet in practice, arbitration often fails to live up to this promise. Tribunals may take months, or even years, after the close of hearings to deliver their awards.

An analysis of the Supreme Court’s decision in Pooja Ramesh Singh v. Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd, examining the consequences of fabricated AI-generated precedents for judicial discipline, professional responsibility and the rule of law.

This newsletter examines recent Supreme Court judgments across arbitration, civil law, criminal law, insolvency, and white-collar crime. Key rulings address the binding of non-signatories to arbitration agreements, the scope of "industry" under the Industrial Disputes Act, limitations on FIR registration following Section 156(3) rejections, and the evidentiary requirements for proving bribery demands under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

Behind Khan Market’s busy cafés and restaurants lies a less visible problem: many of the market’s older buildings were never designed to meet modern fire-safety standards. Several restaurants operate from the first and second floors, which are reached through narrow staircases and, in some cases, only one practical entry and exit route. This structural limitation became a legal issue when the New Delhi Municipal Council (“NDMC”) linked the renewal of restaurant permissions to obtaining a fire no-objection certificate (“Fire NOC”).

In a recent decision in Santosh Associate Private Limited vs. Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. [2026 INSC 872], the Supreme Court of India ("Supreme Court"), while examining a contractual stipulation requiring a contractor to furnish a security deposit before reference of disputes to arbitration, expressed serious reservations regarding onerous pre-deposit conditions that may deter access to arbitration.

In a recent decision in National Projects Construction Corporation Ltd. vs. Ishvakoo (India) Pvt. Ltd. [2026 INSC 828], the Supreme Court of India ("Supreme Court") upheld a direction requiring a party to deposit INR 3.5 crore with the High Court pending adjudication of a challenge under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ("Arbitration Act"), even though the applicant seeking interim protection under Section 9 had been unsuccessful in the arbitral proceedings.

The Delhi High Court's reference to a Larger Bench examines a fundamental question: when does online commercial activity establish territorial jurisdiction in intellectual property disputes? As digital commerce erases traditional geographical boundaries, courts must determine whether website accessibility, targeted advertising, or completed transactions create sufficient legal nexus with a particular forum.

In Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v Trupti Sanjay Mehta and Others, 2026 INSC 943 (Kotak Mahindra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India considered whether a bank as defined under Section 2(1)(c) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) could invoke the provisions of the SARFAESI Act to recover a secured debt acquired from an entity which was not covered under the ambit of the SARFAESI Act at the time of disbursement of the loan.

On 25 August 2026, the Ministry of Labour and Employment issued two notifications (Notifications) under the Code on Wages, 2019 (Wage Code), thereby operationalising specified provisions relating to payment of statutory bonus for establishments for which the appropriate government is the Central Government. The Wage Code consolidates the legislative framework governing wages and related employee entitlements, including the regime previously governed by the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965.

The Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) imposed a penalty of Rs 10 lakhs on Dial4Trade Technologies Private Limited (Dial4Trade) for listing a regulated product, i.e., Ammonium Nitrate, on its e-commerce platform without any regulatory disclosures or warnings. The CCPA found Dial4Trade in violation of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 (the Act), Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) Rules, 2020 (E-Commerce Rules) read with the Explosives Act, 1884 and Ammonium Nitrate Rules, 2012.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in State of Uttar Pradesh v Jai Bir Singh, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1684 brought to a close a nearly five decade-long interpretive controversy surrounding the definition of “industry” under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Between May and August 2026, AI regulation has continued to develop rapidly, with a focus on accountability, transparency, human oversight and protection against AI-related harms.

On 10 August 2026, the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) issued a consultation paper titled “Review of provisions related to ISIN for Debt Securities” (Consultation Paper), proposing the following key changes.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in 35 And Our Health Society v. Union of India vide order dated 10 February 2026, directed the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India to seriously consider the introduction of mandatory front-of-pack warning labels on packaged food products and to place its response on record within four weeks.

As India transitions from the successful Production Linked Incentive (PLI) era into a more mature industrial phase, the Union Cabinet has approved the Mobile Phone Manufacturing Scheme (MPMS).

The issue of taxability of corporate guarantees issued by a holding company to a financial institution for the benefit of its subsidiary company emerged as one of the most contentious issues in the Goods and Services Tax (GST) regime pursuant to the introduction of the levy in 2023. The controversy centers on a fundamental question: when a holding company furnishes a corporate guarantee, without charging any fee from its subsidiary company, to a bank to enable its subsidiary to secure credit facilities, does such activity constitute a taxable “supply of services” under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act)?

Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) in its recent informal guidance dated 20 July 2026 (Informal Guidance), has clarified that Regulation 62A of SEBI (Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements) Regulations, 2015, as amended (LODR Regulations), applies to outstanding unlisted non-convertible debentures, which was are transferred to a debt listed entity pursuant to any corporate restructuring or business transfer.