{"id":372056,"date":"2026-01-08T15:00:59","date_gmt":"2026-01-08T09:30:59","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=372056"},"modified":"2026-01-13T11:12:15","modified_gmt":"2026-01-13T05:42:15","slug":"bom-hc-declines-to-intervene-in-cox-kings-arbitration","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/08\/bom-hc-declines-to-intervene-in-cox-kings-arbitration\/","title":{"rendered":"Bombay High Court declines to intervene in Cox & Kings’ arbitration, says remedy lies under Section 34 Arbitration Act"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Bombay High Court:<\/span> In a writ petition under Articles 226<\/a> and 227<\/a> of the Constitution<\/a>, a Single Judge Bench of Farhan P. Dubash, J., held that interference with orders of an Arbitral Tribunal under Section 16<\/a> of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996<\/a> (‘Arbitration Act’) is permissible only in cases of patent lack of jurisdiction or perversity. Noting that the Tribunal had found the agreements to constitute a composite arrangement, the Court ruled that no patent illegality was disclosed. The petition was accordingly dismissed, with liberty reserved to challenge the impugned orders under Section 34<\/a> of the Arbitration Act<\/a> upon conclusion of the arbitral proceedings.<\/p>\n

Background:<\/h3>\n

The dispute arose from multiple agreements between the parties, including a License Agreement and a Services Agreement. Arbitration was first invoked under the Services General Terms and Conditions Agreement (‘GTC’), leading to constitution of an arbitral tribunal where claims and counterclaims were filed. Insolvency proceedings against one party before the NCLT resulted in adjournment of those proceedings.<\/p>\n

Subsequently, arbitration was again invoked under the GTC, and a sole arbitrator was appointed by the Supreme Court. Claims amounting to Rs 45.99 crore were filed, which appeared like earlier counterclaims. Two applications under Section 16<\/a> of the Arbitration Act<\/a> challenging jurisdiction were filed but rejected by the arbitrator, who held that all agreements formed part of a composite transaction.<\/p>\n

The petitioners argued that the arbitrator had ex-facie usurped jurisdiction, as claims arose under the License Agreement where arbitration had not been invoked. The respondent submitted that writ interference was unwarranted, that objections had already been raised multiple times, and that the proper remedy was to await the final award and challenge it under Section 34<\/a> of the Arbitration Act<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Analysis and Decision:<\/h3>\n

The Court emphasised that only in rare and exceptional cases, and where it is ex-facie evident that the Arbitral Tribunal has passed an order which is patently illegal or perverse or where the exercise of its power is ex-facie and wholly without jurisdiction, interference from the Writ Court is warranted and not otherwise. The Court noted that the Arbitral Tribunal had recorded a finding that all three agreements form part of a composite arrangement between the parties by relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in Ameet Lalchand Shah v. Rishabh Enterprises<\/span>, (2018) 15 SCC 678<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The Court observed that at least at this stage and without the benefit of the final award, it cannot be said that the Arbitral Tribunal has usurped the jurisdiction not vested in it or acted in excess of jurisdiction that was vested in it. The Court highlighted that it did not find any patent illegality in the impugned orders. Thus, interference in writ jurisdiction was not warranted in the present case.<\/p>\n

Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.<\/p>\n

[SAP India (P) Ltd. v. Cox and Kings Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 5662<\/a>, decided on 23-12-2025<\/span>]<\/p>\n\n

Advocates who appeared in this case:<\/p>\n

For the Petitioners:<\/span> Navroz H. Seervai, Senior Advocate with Yohaann Limathwalla, Farhad Sorabjee, Pratik Pawar, Shanaya Cyrus Irani, Siddhesh S. Pradhan i\/b. J. Sagar Associates<\/p>\n

For the Respondent:<\/span> Hiroo Advani with Navdeep Dahiya, Janhavi Sakalkar and Esham Karanjikar i\/b. Advani Law LLP<\/p>\n

Buy Constitution of India  HERE<\/a><\/h3>\n

\"Constitution<\/a><\/p>\n

Buy Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996   HERE<\/a><\/h3>\n

\"arbitration<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

“Only in rare and exceptional cases, where it is ex-facie evident the Arbitral Tribunal has passed an order patently illegal or perverse, or exercised power wholly without jurisdiction, interference from the writ court is warranted.”<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67537,"featured_media":372057,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,10],"tags":[96463,43926,2569,96462,35210,31048,7272],"class_list":["post-372056","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-highcourts","tag-arbitral-tribunal-orders-dismissed","tag-arbitration-act","tag-Bombay_High_Court","tag-composite-transaction","tag-patent-illegality","tag-section-16","tag-writ-jurisdiction"],"yoast_head":"\nBombay HC declines to intervene in Cox & Kings' arbitration | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Bombay High Court dismisses writ petition challenging arbitral tribunal's jurisdiction under Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, holds interference only in rare cases of patent illegality, leaves remedy under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/08\/bom-hc-declines-to-intervene-in-cox-kings-arbitration\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Bombay High Court declines to intervene in Cox & Kings' arbitration, says remedy lies under Section 34 Arbitration Act\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Bombay High Court dismisses writ petition challenging arbitral tribunal's jurisdiction under Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, holds interference only in rare cases of patent illegality, leaves remedy under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/08\/bom-hc-declines-to-intervene-in-cox-kings-arbitration\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2026-01-08T09:30:59+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2026-01-13T05:42:15+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Cox-Kings-arbitration.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"886\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"590\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Soumya Yadav\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"Bombay High Court declines to intervene in Cox & Kings' arbitration, says remedy lies under Section 34 Arbitration Act\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Soumya Yadav\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"3 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/08\/bom-hc-declines-to-intervene-in-cox-kings-arbitration\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/08\/bom-hc-declines-to-intervene-in-cox-kings-arbitration\/\",\"name\":\"Bombay HC declines to intervene in Cox & Kings' arbitration | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/08\/bom-hc-declines-to-intervene-in-cox-kings-arbitration\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/08\/bom-hc-declines-to-intervene-in-cox-kings-arbitration\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Cox-Kings-arbitration.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-01-08T09:30:59+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-01-13T05:42:15+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/352812a68de79340babca39b2fea18c7\"},\"description\":\"Bombay High Court dismisses writ petition challenging arbitral tribunal's jurisdiction under Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, holds interference only in rare cases of patent illegality, leaves remedy under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/08\/bom-hc-declines-to-intervene-in-cox-kings-arbitration\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/08\/bom-hc-declines-to-intervene-in-cox-kings-arbitration\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/08\/bom-hc-declines-to-intervene-in-cox-kings-arbitration\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Cox-Kings-arbitration.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Cox-Kings-arbitration.webp\",\"width\":886,\"height\":590,\"caption\":\"Cox & Kings arbitration\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/08\/bom-hc-declines-to-intervene-in-cox-kings-arbitration\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Bombay High Court declines to intervene in Cox & Kings’ arbitration, says remedy lies under Section 34 Arbitration Act\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/352812a68de79340babca39b2fea18c7\",\"name\":\"Soumya Yadav\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/2363aa3509ea5744057dbee913f279c33e94e40e89a96de9ff58ec27fde9881d?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/2363aa3509ea5744057dbee913f279c33e94e40e89a96de9ff58ec27fde9881d?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Soumya Yadav\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/soumya\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Bombay HC declines to intervene in Cox & Kings' arbitration | SCC Times","description":"Bombay High Court dismisses writ petition challenging arbitral tribunal's jurisdiction under Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, holds interference only in rare cases of patent illegality, leaves remedy under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/08\/bom-hc-declines-to-intervene-in-cox-kings-arbitration\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Bombay High Court declines to intervene in Cox & Kings' arbitration, says remedy lies under Section 34 Arbitration Act","og_description":"Bombay High Court dismisses writ petition challenging arbitral tribunal's jurisdiction under Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, holds interference only in rare cases of patent illegality, leaves remedy under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/08\/bom-hc-declines-to-intervene-in-cox-kings-arbitration\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2026-01-08T09:30:59+00:00","article_modified_time":"2026-01-13T05:42:15+00:00","og_image":[{"width":886,"height":590,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Cox-Kings-arbitration.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Soumya Yadav","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"Bombay High Court declines to intervene in Cox & Kings' arbitration, says remedy lies under Section 34 Arbitration Act","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Soumya Yadav","Est. reading time":"3 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/08\/bom-hc-declines-to-intervene-in-cox-kings-arbitration\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/08\/bom-hc-declines-to-intervene-in-cox-kings-arbitration\/","name":"Bombay HC declines to intervene in Cox & Kings' arbitration | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/08\/bom-hc-declines-to-intervene-in-cox-kings-arbitration\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/08\/bom-hc-declines-to-intervene-in-cox-kings-arbitration\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Cox-Kings-arbitration.webp","datePublished":"2026-01-08T09:30:59+00:00","dateModified":"2026-01-13T05:42:15+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/352812a68de79340babca39b2fea18c7"},"description":"Bombay High Court dismisses writ petition challenging arbitral tribunal's jurisdiction under Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, holds interference only in rare cases of patent illegality, leaves remedy under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/08\/bom-hc-declines-to-intervene-in-cox-kings-arbitration\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/08\/bom-hc-declines-to-intervene-in-cox-kings-arbitration\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/08\/bom-hc-declines-to-intervene-in-cox-kings-arbitration\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Cox-Kings-arbitration.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Cox-Kings-arbitration.webp","width":886,"height":590,"caption":"Cox & Kings arbitration"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/08\/bom-hc-declines-to-intervene-in-cox-kings-arbitration\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Bombay High Court declines to intervene in Cox & Kings’ arbitration, says remedy lies under Section 34 Arbitration Act"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/352812a68de79340babca39b2fea18c7","name":"Soumya Yadav","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/2363aa3509ea5744057dbee913f279c33e94e40e89a96de9ff58ec27fde9881d?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/2363aa3509ea5744057dbee913f279c33e94e40e89a96de9ff58ec27fde9881d?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Soumya Yadav"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/soumya\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Cox-Kings-arbitration.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":291009,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/05\/01\/section-34-of-arbitration-act-a-well-reasoned-arbitral-award-cannot-be-interfered-with-delhi-high-court-on-limited-scope-of-interference-legal-news-legal-research-updates\/","url_meta":{"origin":372056,"position":0},"title":"[Section 34 of Arbitration Act] A well-reasoned arbitral award cannot be interfered with: Delhi High Court","author":"Editor","date":"May 1, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"The Arbitral Tribunal is a creature of Contract, and the Contract is the only basis on which the Learned Tribunal should adjudicate, apart from the general provisions of law and jurisprudence.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"delhi high court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":276434,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/11\/01\/uttaranchal-high-court-commercial-court-cannot-modify-arbitral-award-in-absence-of-manifest-and-patent-error-illegality\/","url_meta":{"origin":372056,"position":1},"title":"Uttaranchal High Court | Commercial Court cannot modify arbitral award in absence of manifest and patent error\/illegality","author":"Editor","date":"November 1, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"\u00a0 \u00a0 Uttaranchal High Court: The Division Bench of Sanjaya Kumar Mishra and Ramesh Chandra Khulbe, JJ. allowed appeals filed by the Contractor under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter \u201cthe Act\u201d) and held that judgments passed by the Additional. District Judge, Commercial Court, Dehradun are\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/10\/Uttaranchal-High-Court-1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/10\/Uttaranchal-High-Court-1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/10\/Uttaranchal-High-Court-1.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/10\/Uttaranchal-High-Court-1.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/10\/Uttaranchal-High-Court-1.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":296925,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/07\/15\/delhi-hc-non-consideration-of-clause-in-concession-agreement-does-not-amount-to-patent-illegality\/","url_meta":{"origin":372056,"position":2},"title":"Delhi High Court | Non-consideration of a clause in a concession agreement not an error that goes into the root of the award; cannot amount to patent illegality","author":"Arunima","date":"July 15, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"The concession agreement is neither a statute, nor is it a law which protects the national interests of this nation and a mere failure of the arbitral tribunal to consider an argument on the same would not render the arbitral award in contravention of the fundamental policy of Indian law.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"delhi high court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":274691,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/09\/29\/delhi-high-court-section34-of-the-arbitration-and-conciliation-act-1996-fraud-public-policy-arbitral-tribunal-international-bar-association-rules-international-arbitration-governmenta-authority-nation\/","url_meta":{"origin":372056,"position":3},"title":"Delhi High Court set aside arbitral award as it suffers from patent illegalities, and fraud and conflicts with the Public Policy of India","author":"Editor","date":"September 29, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"\u00a0 \u00a0 Delhi High Court: In a petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (\u2018the Act\u2019) for setting aside of the arbitral award dated 14.09.2015 allowing the claim of the respondent, Sanjeev Sachdeva, J. has held that the impugned award dated 14.09.2015 suffers from patent\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Delhi High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/delhi_high_court.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/delhi_high_court.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/delhi_high_court.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/delhi_high_court.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/delhi_high_court.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":254017,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/09\/10\/arbitral-awards-3\/","url_meta":{"origin":372056,"position":4},"title":"“There is a disturbing tendency of courts setting aside arbitral awards …”: SC upholds arbitration award of Rs 2728 crore plus interest in favour of Delhi Airport Metro Express (P) Ltd.","author":"Editor","date":"September 10, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court: A Division Bench comprising of L. Nageswara Rao and S. Ravindra Bhat, JJ. upheld the arbitral award of Rs 2782.33 crore plus interest made by the Arbitral Tribunal in favour of\u00a0 Delhi Airport Metro Express (P) Ltd. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Division Bench of\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/07\/MicrosoftTeams-image-7-1.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/07\/MicrosoftTeams-image-7-1.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/07\/MicrosoftTeams-image-7-1.png?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/07\/MicrosoftTeams-image-7-1.png?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/07\/MicrosoftTeams-image-7-1.png?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":292388,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/05\/21\/the-interpretation-of-sum-in-dispute-in-ongc-v-afcons-and-its-application-to-the-bombay-high-court-arbitration-rules\/","url_meta":{"origin":372056,"position":5},"title":"The Interpretation of \u201cSum in Dispute\u201d in ONGC v. Afcons and its Application to the Bombay High Court Arbitration Rules","author":"Editor","date":"May 21, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"by Dormaan Jamshid Dalal*","rel":"","context":"In "Op Eds"","block_context":{"text":"Op Eds","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/op-ed\/legal-analysis\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"ongc v. afcons","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/ongc-v.-afcons.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/ongc-v.-afcons.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/ongc-v.-afcons.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/ongc-v.-afcons.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/372056","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67537"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=372056"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/372056\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/372057"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=372056"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=372056"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=372056"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}