In a recent decision in Murali Lal Agarwal v. KMC Construction Ltd.1 the High Court of Delhi ("High Court") examined the legal framework for incorporating an arbitration clause...

In a recent decision in Moshers vs. Shri Mittal Agritech Pvt. Ltd. [2026:MPHC-IND:23867], the High Court of Madhya Pradesh ("High Court"), while dealing with the execution of a foreign arbitral award which had already been declared enforceable, held that the same High Court which determines enforceability under Sections 47 and 48 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ("Arbitration Act") can proceed to execute the award as a deemed decree under Section 49.

In Aroha Labs Pte Ltd. v. Prem Dharmani1, the Karnataka High Court considered whether an Indian court could grant interim reliefs under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the "Arbitration Act") in respect of an arbitration governed by Singapore law and seated in Singapore.

In HPCL Biofuels Ltd. v. Shahaji Bhanudas Bhad , the Supreme Court of India addressed critical issues concerning procedural discipline and the interplay between arbitration and insolvency proceedings.

In a recent decision in M/s Kings Chariot v. Mr. Tarun Wadhwa , the High Court of Delhi held that when parties do not designate a seat or the place of arbitration, and no part of cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of a High Court.

In Hirani Developers v. Nehru Nagar Samruddhi CHS Ltd. [2026 INSC 484], the Supreme Court considered whether an arbitration clause contained in an earlier development agreement could be incorporated into later agreements by reference.

In Saisudhir Energy Ltd. vs. NTPC Vidyut Vyapar Nigam Ltd. [2026 INSC 103], the Supreme Court considered the limits of appellate interference under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the "Arbitration Act"/ "the Act") where the dispute concerned quantification of liquidated damages under a power purchase agreement

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.

In Jagdeep Chowgule v. Sheela Chowgule (2026 INSC 92), the Supreme Court resolved a recurring jurisdictional controversy under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the "Arbitration Act").

In a recent ruling, the Calcutta High Court, in Kalpataru Projects International Limited v. Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited (BHEL) [AP-COM No. 94 of 2025], appointed an independent arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ("A&C Act").

As litigation disputes in India become increasingly complex, it is common for multiple legal domains to cross paths with each other.

The recent developments in the United States concerning Gautam Adani, Sagar Adani and Adani Enterprises Limited have been received in India through two vastly different perspectives. For some, the proposed settlement of civil proceedings and the reported movement towards dismissal of criminal proceedings represent a significant easing of legal pressure. For others, the very fact that the proceedings were brought remains the more important point. Both readings capture part of the story, but neither fully explains why the episode matters for the Indian business ecosystem.

In V.K. John v. S. Mukanchand Bothra and HUF (Died) Represented by LRs. & Ors. [2026 INSC 393], the Supreme Court considered whether a legal representative aggrieved by an arbitral award can challenge the award under Article 227 of the Constitution of India or Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, instead of taking recourse to Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

In Home Care Retail Marts Pvt. Ltd. v. Haresh N. Sanghavi [2026 INSC 415], the Supreme Court considered whether a party which has lost in arbitration, and therefore has no enforceable award in its favour, can maintain an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 at the post-award stage.

In a recent decision, in RBCL Piletech Infra v. Bholasingh Jaiprakash Construction Limited1 the High Court of Delhi ("High Court") decided a petition ("Petition")...

In M/s Regenvo Mobile Private Limited v. M/s Siyogi Enterprises, the Allahabad High Court allowed an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and set aside an arbitral award as well as the order of the Commercial Court which had dismissed the challenge under Section 34 of the Act.

In Tecpro Systems Limited (In Liquidation) v. Reliance Infrastructure Limited1, the Bombay High Court considered whether a notice invoking arbitration, issued by a liquidator before obtaining the prior approval of the National Company Law Tribunal under Section 33(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (the "IBC"), was void and incapable of supporting an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the "Arbitration Act"). The Court held that prior approval is mandatory.

In VE Commercial Vehicles Limited vs. Singh Enterprises1, the Delhi High Court dealt with a petition under Sections 11(5) and 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the "Arbitration Act") seeking constitution of an arbitral tribunal under a dealership agreement. The High Court held that a contractual stipulation that the place of arbitration "shall always be at Delhi" designated Delhi as the juridical seat, notwithstanding a separate clause conferring exclusive jurisdiction upon the Courts at Indore, since that clause was expressly made subject to the arbitration clause.

In Bharat Udyog Ltd. v. Ambernath Municipal Council through Commissioner [2026 INSC 288], the Supreme Court examined whether an arbitral award could survive where there was no arbitration agreement between the parties and the arbitrator had been appointed unilaterally by the State Government.

In MCM Worldwide Private Limited v. Construction Industry Development Council [2026 INSC 425], the Supreme Court clarified whether an order passed by an arbitral tribunal rejecting a jurisdictional objection under Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 can be immediately challenged under Section 34 of the Act.