Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
Discussions on Day 1 of Asia ADR Week 2026 explored when an arbitral award may be challenged in court, highlighting the distinction between errors in a tribunal’s reasoning and legal grounds for intervention, including jurisdictional issues, public policy and breaches of natural justice.
Articles 226 and 227 should ordinarily not be used to correct interlocutory procedural orders of an Arbitral Tribunal unless there is a patent jurisdictional defect or exceptional perversity.
The Court observed that a mere change of Counsel is no ground to entertain a challenge to the cognizance order when the trial is at the stage of hearing final submissions
by Sara Sundaram* and Nikunj Agarwal**
Two women candidates securing the 6th and 7th positions in Bar Council elections have urged reconsideration of the co-option mechanism, stressing natural justice, electoral representation and meaningful participation of women advocates.
An Administrative-cum-Finance Officer of MAKAIAS challenged his compulsory retirement, alleging that the disciplinary proceedings were vitiated by bias on the part of the Director who acted as the disciplinary authority.
The Court held that educational authorities lacked statutory authority to direct minority educational institutions to provide free education to children of journalists by invoking the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, reiterating that the Act is inapplicable to minority institutions protected under Article 30(1) of the Constitution.
The Tripura High Court quashed the Inspector General of Prisons’ communication and directed reconsideration within three months.
The Calcutta High Court reversed a Sessions Court acquittal, convicted the accused under Sections 376 and 312 IPC and then directed him to surrender before the trial court for sentencing. The Supreme Court found the procedure “unknown to law.”
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 High Court noted that since the State Information Commission failed to record any findings on mala fide denial, unreasonable delay, or contumacious conduct, the penalty order lacked legal foundation and was therefore liable to be quashed.
The Court held that path from the proved fact of transfer of Rs 75,000 to the conclusion of bribery remains unexplained.
The appellant stated that he filled the requisite forms for resolving the tax dispute under Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019. However, the designated committee rectified Form No. SVLDRS-3 and enhanced the amount payable as tax without any show-cause notice.
“We find it ironical that the Commission has ignored this basic tenet of natural justice by issuing the direction in question without hearing the appellant. Thus, on this count also, the impugned order cannot be sustained.”
Initiation of administrative proceedings for disciplinary action against the appellant, we unhesitatingly hold, was bad in law and non est.
In the case at hand, it was alleged that the date of personal hearing and the date of filing a reply are the same.
“The rule of law constitutes the foundation of a well-governed society, and the shadow of bias or mala fides in the exercise of power concerning public 33 functions strikes at the very root of a regulated social order.”
“Whether the termination would take effect from a particular date has no nexus to the period provided for issuance of the notice.”
“The Arbitrator has clearly misconducted by citing the pretext of non-existent Covid-19 restrictions for his own inefficiency, but hurriedly making the award when lockdown restrictions actually existed.”
In the case at hand, the Chandigarh Housing Board rejected jhuggi dwellers’ claim for allotment of flat under the Chandigarh Small Flats Scheme, 2006 without giving them opportunity to be heard.