The Apex Court held that Section 15(2) of the Act vests a limited power with respect to substitution. It cannot be used to set aside the arbitral tribunal's orders, or to wipe out steps already taken in the arbitration.

In a recent decision in Akhil Gupta v. Hindustan Unilever Ltd. , the Delhi High Court, while deciding upon a petition filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ("Arbitration Act")...

In Shri Colonizers and Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Abha Gupta [Special Appeal No. 394 of 2025, decided on 16.12.2025], the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court held that an application under Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for enforcement of a domestic award rendered in an international commercial arbitration.

In J&K Economic Reconstruction Agency v. Rash Builders India Private Limited [2026 INSC 368], the Supreme Court revisited the distinction between the seat and venue of arbitration, and the jurisdictional consequences that follow from that distinction.

The genesis of the disputes was a contract between the petitioner and the Madhya Pradesh Rural Road Development Authority for construction of roads.

On 2 July 2025, the Department of Posts ("DoP") issued a directive titled "Merger of Registered Post with Speed Post".

In the interplay of corporate governance and law, the principle of vicarious liability is an often discussed and contentious subject.

In a recent decision in National Highways Authority of India v. IRB Ahmedabad Vadodara Super Express Tollways Pvt. Ltd

In C. Velusamy vs K. Indhera [2026 INSC 112], the Supreme Court addressed a practical issue increasingly encountered by Courts and practitioners regarding proceedings initiated under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ("Arbitration Act"/ "the Act").

Arbitration, as a mechanism for resolving commercial disputes, has gained prominence for its flexibility, efficiency, and global recognition.

The Supreme Court held that arbitration is premised on consent, and where the existence of the arbitration agreement itself is under serious challenge supported by substantial material, a reference to arbitration is legally impermissible at that stage.

In a recent decision in Mercator Ltd. v. Dredging Corporation of India Ltd.1, the High Court of Delhi ("High Court") held that held that objections to the enforcement of arbitral awards...

In a recent decision in Telecommunication Consultants India Ltd. (TCIL) v. NGBPS Ltd. , the High Court of Delhi held that a generic and vague explanation...

In Nagreeka Indcon Products Pvt. Ltd. v. Cargocare Logistics (India) Pvt. Ltd. [2026 INSC 384], the Supreme Court considered whether a dispute resolution clause stating that disputes "can be settled by arbitration" constituted a binding arbitration agreement under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

In a recent decision in Unique Builders v. Union of India , the High Court of Madras delivered an important judgment delving into the impact of inordinate delay in rendering an arbitral award.

In Jan De Nul Dredging India Pvt. Ltd. vs Tuticorin Port Trust [2026 INSC 34], the Supreme Court reasserted the minimal-intervention design of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 by setting aside a judgment rendered under Section 37 of the Act, which had interfered with an arbitral award on merits.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kamal Gupta v. M/s L.R. Builders Pvt. Ltd. has held that a non-signatory to an arbitration agreement cannot be permitted...

In an important ruling in Godrej Projects Development Ltd. v. Anil Karlekar [2025 INSC 143] the Supreme Court examined the enforceability of forfeiture clauses in real estate agreements

In a recent decision in Manash Kamal Bezboruah vs. Bokahola Tea Company Private Limited [2026 INSC 701], the Supreme Court of India ("Supreme Court"), reiterated that the supervisory jurisdiction of High Courts under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, though not ousted by the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ("Arbitration Act"), must be exercised with extreme circumspection against orders passed by an arbitral tribunal under Section 16 of the Arbitration Act. The Supreme Court held that where an arbitral tribunal rejects a jurisdictional objection, interlocutory interference under Article 227 is warranted only in the exceptional situation of a patent lack of inherent jurisdiction, and the ordinary remedy lies under Section 34 after the final award.

In a recent decision, in Vijay Prabhu v. S. T. Lajapathie [2025 INSC 52], the Supreme Court of India extensively examined the applicability of Section 12(3) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963