In a recent decision, the Delhi High Court has revisited two recurring themes in construction arbitration: the legal effect of a "no-dues certificate" issued at the stage of final bill settlement, and the permissibility of awarding escalation-related damages in the absence of pleadings and evidence.

The Supreme Court in Serosoft Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. Dexter Capital Advisors Pvt. Ltd. [2025 INSC 26] examined the extent to which High Courts can interfere in ongoing arbitration proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

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").

In Tata Capital Ltd. v. Priyanka Communications (India) Pvt. Ltd. , the Bombay High Court addressed a critical issue regarding the interplay between arbitration clauses and statutory remedies available under special laws...

In a recent ruling in Hala Kamel Zabal v. Arya Trading Ltd. , addressed a contentious issue regarding the validity of an arbitral award rendered in an international commercial arbitration...

In a recent decision, the Supreme Court of India reaffirmed the strict application of statutory limitation periods in arbitration disputes. The case titled My Preferred Transformation and Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s Faridabad Implements Pvt. Ltd. [2025 INSC 56], centred around the dismissal of a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ("A&C Act") for being time-barred.

The Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh v. R.K. Pandey [2025:INSC:48] delivered an important ruling addressing the fraudulent invocation of arbitration proceedings and the unilateral appointment of arbitrators.

When it comes to arbitral awards against government departments or public authorities, the question is often not 'if' but 'when' the period begins for challenging the award.

The High Court of Delhi recently rendered a significant judgment in the case of Mohd. Amin through LRs v. Mohd. Iqbal through LRs , dealing with, amongst other things, the enforceability of arbitral awards, the question of limitation, and the need to have a proper evidentiary basis for granting claims in arbitral proceedings.

The dispute arose in the context of a hydroelectric project agreement that contained a multi-tier dispute resolution clause. The DRB rendered its decision in favour of the contractor in 2006, which was not implemented by the employer

In Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. H. R. Construction Pvt. Ltd., [C.O. 4004 of 2024] the Calcutta High Court dismissed a civil revision petition challenging an interim award by an arbitral tribunal allowing amendment of claims at an advanced stage of the proceedings.

In Ballarpur Industries Ltd. v. SG Enterprises [2025:DHC:4232], the Delhi High Court addressed two key legal issues:

In Manjula v. Shriram Transport Finance Co Ltd., [2025:KHC:18406] the Karnataka High Court quashed the entire arbitral proceedings initiated by a private financier against the legal heirs of a deceased borrower.

In Viva Highways Ltd. v. Madhya Pradesh Road Development Corporation Ltd. [SLP (C) No. 38327 of 2025], the Supreme Court intervened at an interim stage to correct a fundamental misapplication of Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ("Arbitration Act"/ "the Act").

In Indraprastha Gas Ltd. v. Chintamani Food and Snacks [Arb. P. No. 355 of 2024], the Delhi High Court appointed a sole arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act...

In a recent judgment in Agarwal Associates (Promoters) Ltd. v. Sharda Developers the Delhi High Court, while dismissing the petitions filed by Agarwal Associates...

The Andhra Pradesh High Court, in M/s. Kranthi Grand DKNV Hospitalities v. M/s. Manasa Estates and Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. [Arb. Appl. No. 62 o 2023], reaffirmed the principle that arbitration agreements must be upheld as per their terms, unless there are valid grounds to deviate from them.

The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the Arbitral Tribunal's findings of fact were supported by evidence on record and did not suffer from perversity or patent illegality.

In a recent decision in KKH Finvest Pvt. Ltd. vs. Ashiesh Shukla [2026 INSC 803], the Supreme Court of India ("Supreme Court"), held that a non-signatory shareholder could be treated as a "veritable party" to an arbitration agreement contained in a Memorandum of Settlement where his obligations under a separately executed Share Purchase Agreement formed an integral part of the underlying composite transaction and the surrounding circumstances demonstrated an intention to be bound by the settlement.