Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
A comprehensive roundup of the key commercial law developments in August 2026, featuring landmark judgments from the Supreme Court, High Courts, NCLAT and Foreign Courts, along with Regulatory Updates, Law Firm News, Expert Corner and Interviews.
Senior arbitration practitioners and representatives of LCIA, SIAC, ICC and MCIA discuss the shift from ad hoc to institutional arbitration, appointment of arbitrators, award scrutiny, procedural efficiency, emergency arbitration and the institutional roadmap for GHAC.
The inaugural ceremony of the GCAI India—Singapore Legal Bridge brought together distinguished members of the judiciary, government, legal profession, business community and corporate counsel to deliberate upon the evolving India—Singapore relationship and the role of law in facilitating trade, investment, innovation and cross-border commerce.
The Court held that whether there has been a “failure to act” must be determined by examining the circumstances as a whole and whether a reasonable time had elapsed for performance of the agreed appointment procedure.
Five recent High Court rulings on arbitration and contractual disputes, spanning challenges to arbitral awards under Section 34, interim measures under Section 9, arbitrability of pre-agreement disputes, contractual modification and novation, and termination of arbitral proceedings under Section 32(2)(c), rounded up from SCC’s High Court Cases (HCC).
The Court clarified that appointments made unilaterally without contractual authority or consent would be void, subject to the Court’s clarification regarding unsuccessful prior challenges.
The Court dismissed a special leave petition challenging the Delhi High Court’s order appointing a Sole Arbitrator under Section 11, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Court upheld the view that an exclusive jurisdiction clause, in the context of arbitration proceedings, can be construed as indicative of the seat of arbitration.
Delhi High Court dismissed a Section 34 challenge after holding that an Arbitral Tribunal rightly refused to rely on a letter exchanged between the respondent and DFCCIL in separate arbitral proceedings. The Court ruled that permitting reliance on such material would undermine the statutory confidentiality regime under Section 42-A, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Reiterating the legislative policy of minimal judicial interference in arbitral proceedings, the Court observed that interference under Article 227 is warranted only in rare cases involving a patent lack of inherent jurisdiction that is apparent on the face of the record
The judgment reinforces the finality of foreign arbitral awards in India and provides greater certainty for investors and commercial parties, particularly in sectors such as energy, infrastructure and natural resources, by limiting enforcement-stage challenges based on public policy grounds.
In a Section 9 plea under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the Court holds that the Heads of Terms constitutes a prima facie binding commercial arrangement warranting interim protection, leaving questions of enforceability and entitlement to specific performance to the arbitral tribunal.
by Vasanth Rajasekaran* and Harshvardhan Korada**
The Court clarified that limitation under Section 34, Arbitration Act, begins only upon disposal of proceedings formally instituted and entertained under Section 33 by the Arbitral Tribunal.
India’s mediation tradition predates its legislation by millennia. England’s mediation culture was built by judicial pressure and adverse costs. At LIDW 2026, practitioners from both jurisdictions found more agreement than disagreement and a shared frustration with what arbitration has become.
The distinction drawn at LIDW26 between due process challenges and public policy review finds a close parallel in Indian arbitration jurisprudence, where courts examine procedural fairness and public policy concerns through separate legal lenses.
The Court held that deduction for shortfall in Minimum Guaranteed CENVAT Credit (MGCC) could not be made from the net contract value, as such an interpretation would effectively result in a double deduction unsupported by the contract terms.
At the hearing, it was contended that the said clause was permissive in nature and does not constitute a binding arbitration agreement within the meaning of Section 7.
The dispute concerned the broadcast and commercial exploitation of the ween the parties relating to the broadcast and commercial exploitation of the Legends League Cricket tournament, managed by Absolute Legends Sports.
The Arbitral Tribunal was justified in awarding post-award interest, but the rate of interest required modification.