Writ Maintainable To Safeguard Existing Right

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.

This Connect provides a brief overview of the judgement of the Supreme Court in the Larsen & Toubro case where it examined whether an arbitral tribunal could award pre-award...

The Delhi High Court ("HC") in Baikuntha Nath Das case1 held voluntary retirement could not be cancelled.

The Supreme Court ("SC"), in Leela and others case,1 held that a will is not deemed valid simply by being registered. Rather, it must be proven in compliance with Section 682 of the Evidence Act, 1872 and Section 633 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925.

The Gujarat High Court in the Sadgunbhai Semulbhai Solanki case1 held that depriving a person of their leave encashment, which is equivalent to their salary, violates their constitutional right.

Madhya Pradesh High Court ("HC"), in Vikram Singh case,1 held that violation of service rules does not fall within the purview of violation of discharge of public functions.

The Kerala High Court (HC), in the case of Sakkir Hussain,1 held that it can exercise jurisdiction over the order of compensation by the Commissioner when there is a lack of evidence to prove the existence of an employer-employee relationship.

The Chhattisgarh High Court in Yaad Das Sahu case held that even for contractual employment, if any stigmatic termination order is to be passed, it must be done after holding proper enquiry and giving due opportunity of hearing to the concerned employee.

The Kerala High Court, in Hareesh M.S. case, observed that Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 will apply only when there is an allegation of sexual harassment.

The High Court of Kerala ("HC"), in the Sanjeevan Swamy case, held that in ex parte proceedings, the Court can issue an order in favour of the party present only if they prove their rights or the opposite party's liability.

The Delhi High Court (HC), in the Broad Peak case,1 dealt with a case where two companies held trademark registration over an identical trademark.