The arbitral award had dissolved a partnership firm that ran a hotel and bar known as 'Hotel Alakananda' at Kollam, declared the partnership deed and two registered sale deeds void for want of consideration, and settled accounts between the partners.

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.

In Kessels Engineering Works Pvt. Ltd. v. Neo Metaliks Limited [AP-COM/245/2024 with EC/143/2021, decided on 19 December 2025], the Calcutta High Court decided an important question regarding the interplay between Section 42 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the concept of the seat of arbitration as crystallised by party autonomy.

Is it erroneous for an arbitral tribunal to rely on a Chartered Accountant ("CA") certificate as proof of actual costs incurred?

In Nagaraj V. Mylandla vs. PI Opportunities Fund-I [2026 INSC 298], the Supreme Court considered a recurring problem in foreign award enforcement: whether an award debtor, after unsuccessfully challenging an award before the court at the seat, can resist enforcement in India by re-framing the same objections as questions of Indian public policy.

In Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited & Ors. v. R Z Malpani [2026 INSC 342], the Supreme Court examined whether a Letter of Intent issued pursuant to a tender process created a concluded contract and incorporated the arbitration clause contained in the tender documents.

The Calcutta High Court, in Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority v. South City Projects (Kolkata) [APO 205 of 2023], upheld an arbitral award in favour of the respondent consortium, dismissing the appeal filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ("A&C Act").

In Rajiv Gaddh v. Subodh Parkash [2026 INSC 302], the Supreme Court considered whether a party that had abandoned earlier arbitral proceedings could later file a fresh application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 on the same cause of action.

In Eminent Colonizers Pvt. Ltd. vs. Rajasthan Housing Board [2026 INSC 116], the Supreme Court examined whether a party can, after participating in arbitration and suffering an award, reopen the reference by contending at the Section 34-stage that the contractual dispute resolution clause was not an arbitration agreement at all.

In recent years, cryptocurrency has experienced phenomenal growth worldwide, and disputes related to virtual assets are increasingly reaching courts and arbitral tribunals...

In Union of India v. M/s ISC-YUG (JV)1, the Delhi High Court considered whether petitions challenging an arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the "Arbitration Act") were within limitation when the signed award had been collected by the petitioner's counsel, but was allegedly not delivered directly to the petitioner.

In Union of India, Ministry of Railways v. Gallant Ispat Limited1, the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, considered whether a delay of 28 days in filing a challenge to an arbitral award could be condoned merely because the challenge was filed within the additional thirty-day period permitted by the proviso to Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the "Arbitration Act"). The Court held that the additional period is available only where the applicant establishes sufficient cause.

In Oil Field Instrumentation India Pvt. Ltd. v. Xcalibur Multiphysics Group S.L. & Ors.1, the Bombay High Court considered a challenge under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the "Arbitration Act") to an order refusing interim relief under Section 17. The dispute concerned an exclusive joint venture arrangement for conducting airborne geophysical surveys across a defined territory and a contract independently undertaken in Bhutan by an affiliate of one of the joint venture partners.

In KKH Finvest Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Ashiesh Shukla & Ors., the Supreme Court considered whether a shareholder who had not signed a Memorandum of Settlement containing an arbitration agreement could nevertheless be treated as a "veritable party" to that agreement and be referred to arbitration. The Court held that the absence of a signature was not determinative where the surrounding contractual framework and the non-signatory's performance demonstrated an intention to participate in, and be bound by, the composite transaction.

In NCC Limited v. Airport Authority of India1, the Delhi High Court considered whether a contractor could invoke Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the "Arbitration Act") to seek a stay of an order debarring it from participating in future tenders issued by a statutory authority.

In a recent case titled Sanjabij Tari vs. Kishore S. Borcar , the Supreme Court has taken a landmark step toward modernising and reforming the procedure and delivery of justice in cheque bounce cases.

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 JPC Infrastructure and Constructions Private Limited v. Alstom Transport India Limited1, the Delhi High Court considered whether an arbitral tribunal had committed patent illegality by refusing to rely upon a document originating from a separate arbitration.

The Calcutta High Court, in Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority v. South City Projects (Kolkata) [APO 205 of 2023], upheld an arbitral award in favour of the respondent consortium, dismissing the appeal filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ("A&C Act").

In a recent decision in Power Mech Projects Ltd. v. Doosan Power Systems India Pvt. Ltd. , the High Court of Delhi reiterated the legal position that a Court acting under Sections 29A(4) and 29A(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.