Stay updated with significant 2025—2026 High Court rulings shaping arbitration jurisprudence. This concise overview highlights recent HCC cases on arbitrability, limits of judicial interference, interpretation of contractual clauses, enforcement of restrictive covenants, applicability of the Arbitration Act, 1996, scope of appellate jurisdiction under Sections 34 and 37. These decisions provide insight into evolving judicial approach towards arbitration agreements, procedural autonomy of arbitral tribunals and enforcement of arbitral awards.
-
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 — Held on facts, arbitral tribunal rightly declined jurisdiction over claims pertaining to period prior to execution of agreement and rejected such claims — No patent illegality or perversity made out — Order upholding award calls for no interference — Appeal dismissed. [Maruti Traders v. Itron India (P) Ltd., (2026) 1 HCC (Del) 1]
-
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. [Intercode Solutions (P) Ltd. v. Armor India Coding & Imaging Supplies (P) Ltd., (2026) 1 HCC (Del) 263]
-
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Ss. 2(1)(e), 20 and 42 — Seat of arbitration — Determination of — Applicability of law of employer’s country — When contract and arbitral orders designate “neutral location” and “place of arbitration” as particular city, and arbitration “shall be held” there, with no contrary indication, that city is juridical seat of arbitration, carrying exclusive supervisory jurisdiction.— Disputes arose under agreement, leading to arbitration under Cl. 20.6 of General Conditions of Contract, with arbitral tribunal awarding compensation to respondent.— Cl. 20.6(b) of General Conditions of Contract provides that arbitration in domestic contracts shall be conducted “in accordance with laws of employer’s country”, employer’s country is India and nothing in contract indicates intention to apply J&K Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1997 as separate regime — Arbitral Tribunal’s conclusion that Delhi is juridical “seat” of arbitration and applicable curial law is Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and not J&K Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1997 — Challenge to— Held, seat of arbitration is Delhi and parties themselves proceeded under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, it is not open for petitioner to contend that arbitration proceedings were to be conducted under J&K Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1997 — No infirmity found with conclusion arrived at by Arbitral Tribunal, that place of arbitration is Delhi, there was no contrary indicia to show that arbitration proceedings should be held at any other place other than Delhi. [ J&K ERA v. Abhiram Infra Projects (P) Ltd., (2026) 1 HCC (Del) 310]
-
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — S. 34 — Arbitral Award — Challenge to — Interpretation of contractual clauses — Scope of — Held, interpretation of contractual stipulations in exclusive domain of Arbitral Tribunal and even if any error is committed in interpretation, such error is within jurisdiction of Tribunal — Interpretation of contractual clauses by Arbitral Tribunal is not something which no fair-minded person would not undertake — It was a plausible interpretation — Therefore, no case made out for interference in award of counter-claim in favour of respondent. [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 [Messse Frankfurt Trade Fairs India (P) Ltd. v. Netlink Solutions India Ltd., (2026) 1 HCC (Bom) 100]
-
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Ss. 16, 34 and 37 — Appeals — Embargo on hearing of appeal — ONGC praying for deferment of appeal before Supreme Court — Supreme Court directing deferment of hearing of present appeals only till reconstituted Arbitral Tribunal considered all documents requisitioned by appellant for a fresh ruling on issue of jurisdiction — Supreme Court subsequently directing reconstituted Arbitral Tribunal to decide appellant’s application for disclosure and inspection of documents with liberty to parties to apply for fresh evidence — Order of remand of S. 16 proceedings and direction for keeping hearing of present appeals in abeyance given by Supreme Court only on account of failure on part of first Arbitral Tribunal in not deciding appellant’s application for disclosure and inspection — Appellant’s application for discovery and inspection allowed by Reconstituted Arbitral Tribunal — Reconstituted Arbitral Tribunal ruled in favour of respondent by directing its deletion while allowing application filed under S. 16 of the 1996 Act — Arbitration proceedings terminated — Continued deferment of hearing of appeal — Tenability of — Held, Supreme Court has not directed that hearing of appeals be held in abeyance until appellant exhausts all remedies in respect of ruling given by Reconstituted Arbitral Tribunal on its jurisdiction, under S. 16 of the 1996 Act — Embargo on hearing of appeals only till outcome of arbitral proceedings between appellant and respondent — Therefore, hearing of present appeals can no longer be deferred as directions of Supreme Court limited — Order passed by High Court deferring hearing of present appeals not in line with directives issued by Supreme Court — Plea on behalf of appellant for deferment of hearing of appeals till appellant’s appeal under S. 37 of the 1996 Act challenging the order rejected — Judgment and order passed by Single Judge and award passed by Arbitral Tribunal upheld — Appeal dismissed. [ONGC Ltd. v. Jindal Drilling & Industries Ltd., (2025) 3 HCC (Bom) 144]
