This roundup covers the latest High Court judgments reported in SCC’s High Court Cases (HCC) on arbitration and contractual disputes under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and allied contractual principles. The cases examine the limited scope of judicial interference with arbitral awards, the enforceability of restrictive covenants at the interim stage, the jurisdiction of arbitral tribunals over disputes arising prior to execution of an arbitration agreement, the requirements for valid contractual modification, and the circumstances in which arbitral proceedings may be terminated as “unnecessary” or “impossible”. The rulings offer a focused view of how High Courts are balancing party autonomy, contractual certainty and the limited supervisory jurisdiction of courts in arbitration matters.
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — S. 34 — Arbitral Award — Challenge to — Patent illegality and admission of liability — Effect of acknowledgement letters — Statement of claim framed on quantum of work — Held, if a claimant makes a conscious choice to seek a claim based on actual quantum of work performed rather than solely relying on admission letters, claimant cannot subsequently criticise tribunal for not granting any relief in terms of alleged admissions — Constitution of India — Art. 226 — Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, S. 138
[Kanti Builders (P) Ltd. v. Witty Enterprises (P) Ltd., (2026) 1 HCC (Bom) 86]
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — S. 9 — Interim measures — Restraining conduct of trade exhibitions — Alleged breach of non-compete and non-solicit covenants in Asset Purchase Agreement (APA) and amended APA — Petition under S. 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking interim measures at pre-arbitration stage — Grant of relief — Enforcement of a non-compete covenant in absence of a prima facie case establishing breach by covenant-bound parties — Interim measure — Denial of — Held, petitioner failed to establish a prima facie case that Respondents 1 and 3, who were bound by restrictive covenants of APA, were directly or indirectly associated with the exhibitions— Mere past association or continued proximity between parties does not establish participation in competing business — Respondent 2, not being a signatory to APA or amended APA and having received no consideration for restrictive covenant, prima facie not bound by non-compete obligation — Non-compete covenant cannot be enforced against a non-signatory employee, particularly post-termination, being void as restraint of trade under S. 27 of the Contract Act, 1872 — The exhibitions admittedly organized by Respondent 6, a non-signatory — Interim relief against third party (non-signatory organiser) permissible only sparingly and not where relief is directly aimed against such third party without nexus to subject-matter of arbitration — No material to establish that exhibitions were in fact organized by Respondents 1 and 3 — Suppression of material facts and delay in approaching court disentitle equitable relief — Adequate remedy of damages available — No case made out for grant of interim measures — Petition dismissed — Contract Act, 1872, S. 27
[Messse Frankfurt Trade Fairs India (P) Ltd. v. Netlink Solutions India Ltd., (2026) 1 HCC (Bom) 100]
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Ss. 34 and 37 — Application for setting aside arbitral awards — Appealable orders-Jurisdiction of Arbitral Tribunal — Scope of interference — Arbitrability of disputes arising prior to execution of agreement — Determination of — Held, Arbitral Tribunal lacks jurisdiction over disputes not governed by an arbitration agreement — Business relationship between parties for earlier period governed by authorisation letters appointing dealer on non-exclusive basis, which did not contain any arbitration clause — Absence of arbitration agreement for said period renders disputes non-arbitrable — Mere existence of commercial dealings or subsequent agreement does not confer retrospective jurisdiction on arbitral tribunal — Held further, court under Ss. 34 and 37 cannot reappreciate findings unless patent illegality or perversity is shown
[Maruti Traders v. Itron India (P) Ltd., (2026) 1 HCC (Del) 1]
Contract and Specific Relief — Variation, Rectification and Novation of Contract — Modes of novation/variation and when permissible — Modification/Variation/Alteration as per Variation/Modification clause — Amendment/modification of terms of SPAs — Converting project land into non-agricultural category — Condition precedent becoming condition subsequent — Amendment undertaken in violation of express procedure provided for in contract — In absence of formal amendment, termination would have effect — Cl. 5.6 SPA between parties providing that in event condition precedent not fulfilled, on or before Closing Long Stop Date, the agreement shall automatically terminate — To exclude NA Conversion Condition from list of condition precedent and, and to seek escape from consequence of its non-fulfilment appellant claiming that condition precedent effectively became condition subsequent, vide modification/amendment of relevant clause of the agreement — Held, Cl. 17.5 of the agreement requires modification, amendment, or waiver of any provision of the contract to be made in writing and duly signed by each party — Purported amendment whereby condition precedent claimed to have been converted into condition subsequent does not comply with requirement of Cl. 17.5 of the agreement — Modification not recognised in law — Closing Long Stop Date (CLSD) under SPAs, which originally stood at 30-4-2025 was extended to 31-5-2025 with mutual consent, in draft incorporating an amendment to the agreement, which also provided for NA Conversion Condition to become a condition subsequent — Amendment document was non-binding as parties had not signed/executed said amendment or any other document which modifies/amends SPAs so as to extend CLSD and make NA Conversion Condition a condition subsequent — Thus, draft never attained finality and assumed binding value, which was contingent upon specified procedure — In absence of any material supporting formal conversion of condition precedent into condition subsequent, automatic termination provided for under Cl. 5.6 of the agreement would have its intended effect
[JLT Energy 9 SAS v. Hindustan Clean Energy Ltd., (2026) 1 HCC (Del) 17]
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — S. 32(2)(c) — Termination of arbitral proceedings — Pendency of parallel civil proceedings involving overlapping issues — Scope of expressions “unnecessary” and “impossible” — Termination of arbitral proceedings under S. 32(2)(c) on ground that parallel civil proceedings involving overlapping issues pending, thereby rendering continuation of arbitration “unnecessary” or “impossible” — Justification— Held, S. 32(2)(c) cannot be invoked to defeat agreed arbitral forum on grounds of convenience or multiplicity of proceedings — Further held, power under S. 32(2)(c) can be invoked only where continuation of arbitral proceedings becomes genuinely “unnecessary” or “impossible” for reasons extraneous to party default — Expressions “unnecessary” and “impossible” must be applied contextually, as measure of last resort, and cannot be equated with mere procedural inconvenience, overlap of issues, or pendency of parallel proceedings — Mere existence of civil suit, possibility of conflicting decisions, or perceived comprehensiveness of another forum not render arbitration impossible — Tribunal misapplied settled principles by treating overlapping issues and pendency of civil proceedings as rendering arbitration impossible, without proper scrutiny or demonstration of legal or practical bar — Order set aside — Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Ss. 5 and 8
[Intercode Solutions (P) Ltd. v. Armor India Coding & Imaging Supplies (P) Ltd., (2026) 1 HCC (Del) 263]
