The Jharkhand High Court, in Rites Ltd. & Damodar Valley Corporation v. M/s Supreme BKB DECO JV, addressed an important issue concerning the permissible limits of judicial intervention...

The Delhi High Court in Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. v. Micro and Small Enterprise Facilitation Council [2025:DHC:102] examined the maintainability of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution against an arbitral award rendered under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006.

The Delhi High Court in M/s Indure Pvt. Ltd. v. Aneja Construction (India) Ltd. [2024:DHC:9861] reaffirmed the principle that statutory timelines for challenging arbitral awards under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ("A&C Act") are sacrosanct.

In a recent decision, in M/s ISC Projects Private Limited v. Steel Authority of India Limited , the Delhi High Court set aside an arbitral award on the ground that it was signed by only two out of three arbitrators, with no explanation for the missing signature of the third arbitrator.

In FLFL Travel Retail Lucknow Private Limited v. Airports Authority of India, the Delhi High Court addressed significant procedural lapses in the arbitration process...

The Kerala High Court in Bhageeratha Engineering Ltd. v. State of Kerala [2025:Ker:337] examined the validity of contractual time limits that restrict a party's right to invoke arbitration.

In a recent decision in M/s Space 4 Business Solution Pvt. Ltd. v. The Divisional Commissioner, Revenue Department, GNCTD and Ors.

In a recent judgment in H. Anjanappa v. A. Prabhakar , the Supreme Court of India dealt with the applicability of the doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

In the recent judgment of R.P. Garg v. The Chief General Manager, Telecom Department the Supreme Court of India addressed the issue of whether a party is entitled to post-award interest...

In a recent decision in State of West Bengal v. Rajpath Contractors & Engineers Ltd., the Supreme Court of India has held that the three-month limitation period prescribed under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ...

In the case of Dalmia Family Office Trust v. Getamber Anand, the Delhi High Court dealt with a significant issue concerning delay tactics and the misuse of procedural...

In a recent decision, the Delhi High Court, in Indian Railways Catering and Tourism Corporation Ltd. (IRCTC) v. Brandavan Food Products Ltd....

The National Highways Authority of India ("NHAI"), as the central agency leading the development of road infrastructure in India, has a history of numerous disputes resulting from complex concession and engineering contracts.

In a recent decision in Bhadra International India Pvt. Ltd. v. Airports Authority of India, the Delhi High Court held that a party cannot belatedly challenge an arbitral award on the ground of unilateral appointment...

In Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. v. Sanman Rice Mills , the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reaffirmed the principle of minimal judicial interference in arbitral proceedings...

In a significant ruling in Suresh Shah v. Tata Consultancy Services Ltd., the Delhi High Court examined the nature and scope of the provisions contained in Section 2(1)(f) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

In a significant decision on the architecture of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ("the Act"), the Supreme Court has examined the legal consequences of termination of arbitral proceedings on account of non-payment of arbitral fees and the remedies available to an aggrieved party.

In Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. BCL Secure Premises Pvt. Ltd., the Supreme Court has reiterated the limits of a referral Court's jurisdiction under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ("the Act"), particularly when a non-signatory seeks to invoke an arbitration agreement.

In a recent decision, the Delhi High Court has reaffirmed that once a competent civil Court has declined a reference to arbitration under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

In a recent decision, the Supreme Court has clarified the consequences that follow once the statutory time limit for making an arbitral award expires under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ("the Act").