HCMONTHLY CASE LAW ARCHIVE

Rajasthan High Court Judgments in July 2026: Case Law Digest

Read 20 LawLens analyses of Rajasthan High Court judgments published in July 2026, covering key rulings, legal principles and case law.

← BACK TO RAJASTHAN COURT REPORT

PERMANENT MONTHLY EDITIONS

Browse by month

AUTOMATICALLY UPDATED

July 2026 Judgments

20 ARTICLES · NEWEST FIRST
Interim orders under Section 36(3) are not appealable under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act. ### Case Summary Background The appellant, a Government undertaking, challenged an arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The Commercial Court granted a stay on the award's enforcement but conditioned it upon the deposit of the entire awarded amount. The appellant appealed this condition, arguing it was arbitrary and ignored the merits of their challenge. Key Legal Issue The central question was whether an appeal lies against an interim order passed under Section 36(3) of the Arbitration Act (concerning the stay of an award) by invoking Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. Court's Analysis and Ruling The High Court dismissed the appeal as non-maintainable, reasoning that: * Exclusionary Nature of Section 37: Section 37 of the Arbitration Act is an exhaustive code that lists specific appealable orders. Since Section 36(3) is not mentioned, appeals against such orders are barred. * Restrictive Scope of Commercial Courts Act: Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act does not create new appellate rights; it merely provides the forum for appeals already authorized under Section 37. The court emphasized that the Arbitration Act is a self-contained code that overrides general appellate provisions. * Policy Against Interlocutory Litigation: Permitting appeals against conditional stays would defeat the legislative intent of speedy enforcement and minimal judicial interference in arbitration. The Court concluded that while the appellant remains free to seek supervisory relief under Article 227 of the Constitution, no statutory appeal exists for this specific interlocutory order. Would you like a summary of the next segment or another judgment?. RAJSTHAN STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION vs ORIGO COMMODITIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED. Rajasthan High Court. LawLens

Rajasthan High Court·

Arbitration and MediationCivil Procedure and Evidence

Interim orders under Section 36(3) are not appealable under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act. ### Case Summary Background The appellant, a Government undertaking, challenged an arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The Commercial Court granted a stay on the award's enforcement but conditioned it upon the deposit of the entire awarded amount. The appellant appealed this condition, arguing it was arbitrary and ignored the merits of their challenge. Key Legal Issue The central question was whether an appeal lies against an interim order passed under Section 36(3) of the Arbitration Act (concerning the stay of an award) by invoking Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. Court's Analysis and Ruling The High Court dismissed the appeal as non-maintainable, reasoning that: * Exclusionary Nature of Section 37: Section 37 of the Arbitration Act is an exhaustive code that lists specific appealable orders. Since Section 36(3) is not mentioned, appeals against such orders are barred. * Restrictive Scope of Commercial Courts Act: Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act does not create new appellate rights; it merely provides the forum for appeals already authorized under Section 37. The court emphasized that the Arbitration Act is a self-contained code that overrides general appellate provisions. * Policy Against Interlocutory Litigation: Permitting appeals against conditional stays would defeat the legislative intent of speedy enforcement and minimal judicial interference in arbitration. The Court concluded that while the appellant remains free to seek supervisory relief under Article 227 of the Constitution, no statutory appeal exists for this specific interlocutory order. Would you like a summary of the next segment or another judgment?

The Appellant and Respondent entered into a PPP Contract Agreement on 25.06.2020 for warehouse management

2 MIN READ