Delhi High Court
LEGAL SUBJECT
Arbitration and Mediation
Judgment analyses where this is the main or secondary subject.Latest analyses
30 ARTICLES
Delhi High Court
Failure of the contractual DRC to act exhausts the pre-arbitral mechanism, permitting Section 11 appointment.
The Petitioner sought appointment of a sole arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“the Act”) in relation to disputes arising from Agreement No. 12/EE/Edu.(M) South West/2018–19 for...3 MIN READ↗
Delhi High Court
Unreasoned ex parte Section 17 status quo orders passed without demonstrated urgency cannot stand.
The National Highways Authority of India (“NHAI”) awarded the respondent an Engineering, Procurement and Construction contract dated 19 January 2024 for construction of a section of the Vadodara–Mumbai Expressway in G...4 MIN READ↗
Delhi High Court
Under Section 11, courts need only prima facie examine the existence of an arbitration agreement.
The Petitioner, an allottee and owner of a commercial unit, had purchased the unit from the Respondent under a Conveyance Deed/Builder-Buyer Agreement and Memorandum of Understanding dated 17 June 2022.2 MIN READ↗
Delhi High Court
Fresh Section 21 arbitration notice not required after award is set aside, Delhi High Court rules
The Petitioner filed a petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“the Act”) seeking appointment of a sole arbitrator to adjudicate disputes with the Union of India.3 MIN READ↗
Delhi High Court
Section 34 courts cannot reappreciate evidence or substitute a plausible arbitral interpretation.
DLF Home Developers Limited (“DLF”) launched the DLF Towers commercial project at Okhla, Delhi. Klassik Lamitex Pvt. Ltd. (“Klassik”) applied on 21 March 2008 for provisional allotment of approximately 830 sq. ft. of...5 MIN READ↗
Delhi High Court
Union of India’s unilateral arbitrator appointment void without express waiver; Delhi HC sets aside awardરની
The Union of India invited bids for the supply of malted milk food with cocoa for defence procurement.4 MIN READ↗
Delhi High Court
Section 11 enquiry is confined to prima facie existence of a valid arbitration agreement.
Aditya Birla Capital Limited sanctioned a loan facility of ₹5 crores to Respondent No. 1, with Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 as co-borrowers, under a Facility Agreement dated 30 March 2023.3 MIN READ↗
Bombay High Court
Section 9 relief may preserve hypothecated assets, but cannot routinely secure monetary claims.
Tata Capital Limited advanced financial facilities to the respondents for purchasing construction equipment. The parties executed Loan-cum-Hypothecation Agreements dated 8 November 2024, under which the equipment was...5 MIN READ↗
Bombay High Court
Section 9 permits receivership to preserve hypothecated assets, but not routine attachment securing monetary claims.
Tata Capital Limited financed the respondents’ purchase of construction equipment under Loan-cum-Hypothecation Agreements dated 8 November 2024.5 MIN READ↗
Bombay High Court
Section 9 permits receivership to preserve hypothecated movable assets, but not routine security for monetary claims.
Tata Capital Limited sanctioned construction-equipment finance to the respondents under Loan-cum-Hypothecation Agreements dated 8 November 2024. The respondents agreed to repay the loans in instalments and created a f...5 MIN READ↗
Bombay High Court
Section 9 permits receivership to preserve hypothecated movable assets, but not routine security for monetary claims.
Tata Capital Limited financed the respondents’ purchase of construction equipment under Loan-Cum-Hypothecation Agreements dated 8 November 2024.5 MIN READ↗
Delhi High Court
A delay exceeding 120 days in challenging an arbitral award under Section 34 is incurable.
The appellant issued a tender for repair and maintenance of track in a yard on 6 September 2011, and the respondent was awarded the work, which was to be completed by 6 December 2012.3 MIN READ↗
Bombay High Court
Section 9 permits court-appointed receivership to preserve hypothecated movable assets pending arbitration.
Tata Capital Limited advanced construction-equipment finance to the respondents under Loan-cum-Hypothecation Agreements dated 8 November 2024. The financed construction equipment was hypothecated in favour of the peti...5 MIN READ↗
Bombay High Court
Section 9 permits appointment of a receiver to preserve hypothecated movable assets pending arbitration.
Tata Capital Limited advanced construction-equipment finance to the respondents under Loan-cum-Hypothecation Agreements dated 8 November 2024.5 MIN READ↗
Bombay High Court
Bombay High Court allows Court Receiver to trace and take possession of hypothecated construction equipment in loan-default arbitration cases while rejecting bank-account attachment and additional-security demands
Tata Capital Limited financed the respondents’ purchase of construction equipment under Loan-cum-Hypothecation Agreements dated 8 November 2024.5 MIN READ↗
Bombay High Court
Section 9 permits court-supervised repossession of hypothecated assets, but not routine attachment securing monetary claims.
Tata Capital Limited sanctioned and disbursed construction-equipment finance to the respondents under Loan-Cum-Hypothecation Agreements dated 8 November 2024.5 MIN READ↗
Delhi High Court
Section 11 scrutiny is confined to prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement.
The dispute arose from a Memorandum of Understanding dated 21 November 2023 concerning the sale of Plot No. C-31, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-I, New Delhi–110020.2 MIN READ↗
Delhi High Court
Section 34 courts cannot reappreciate evidence or substitute a plausible arbitral view.
The National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) awarded the respondent an item-rate contract for short-term improvement and routine maintenance of specified sections of NH-2 in Uttar Pradesh.4 MIN READ↗
Delhi High Court
Cross-FIRs alleging Section 354 IPC may be quashed under Section 528 BNSS following genuine settlement of private disputes.
The petitions arose from cross-FIRs concerning an altercation between landlord-and-tenant families on 16 February 2018.3 MIN READ↗
Karnataka High Court
Section 33 Arbitration Act deadline is inflexible; delay cannot be condoned even in statutory highway land-acquisition arbitration, Karnataka High Court rules
The National Highways Authority of India and the Special Land Acquisition Officer challenged, under Section 37(1)(c) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“A&C Act”), the dismissal of their Section 34 petitio...4 MIN READ↗
Delhi High Court
An exclusive jurisdiction clause can establish that the designated arbitration venue is not the juridical seat.
The Petitioner procured 696 MT of Sona Masuri/RNR paddy under a Supply Agreement dated 6 February 2024 with Respondent No. 2. Pending payment and lifting, the paddy was stored at Varasiddi Vinayaka Godown.3 MIN READ↗
Delhi High Court
Section 11 enquiry is confined to prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement.
The petitioner filed a petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“the Act”) seeking appointment of a sole arbitrator to adjudicate disputes arising from the Loan Agreement dated 29 Fe...2 MIN READ↗
Bombay High Court
Pending membership and resolution disputes do not bar Section 9 interim protection for approved redevelopment.
The petitioner, claiming to be the owner and developer of the redevelopment property, relied on a registered Development Agreement dated 26 December 2023 executed with Respondent No. 1, Rachana Co-operative Housing So...5 MIN READ↗
Bombay High Court
Bombay High Court directs Afcons JV to keep nearly ₹400 crore in bank guarantees alive while ONGC challenges arbitral award
ONGC and Afcons Infrastructure Limited entered into a contract for the construction, installation and commissioning of an offshore project, with completion stipulated by 30 April 2011.5 MIN READ↗
Supreme Court
A non-signatory becomes a veritable party where its performance is integral to the underlying contract.
KKH Finvest Pvt. Ltd. proposed to acquire Sensorise Digital Services Pvt. Ltd. and its sister concern under a Memorandum of Settlement dated 09.05.2022 (“MoS”), executed by the buyer, the companies and their promoters.3 MIN READ↗
Delhi High Court
A valid arbitration agreement and party consensus warrant appointment of a sole arbitrator under Section 11(6).
The petitioners—Gurinder Pal Singh, Dharampal Vig and Jaspal Singh Kharbanda—filed petitions under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking appointment of a sole arbitrator to adjudicate di...3 MIN READ↗
Delhi High Court
A valid arbitration agreement and party consensus warrant appointment of a sole arbitrator under Section 11(6).
The petitioners—Gurinder Pal Singh, Dharampal Vig and Jaspal Singh Kharbanda—filed petitions under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking appointment of a sole arbitrator to adjudicate di...3 MIN READ↗
Delhi High Court
Section 37 appellate review cannot reappreciate evidence or disturb a reasonably possible arbitral finding.
The Appellant, proprietor of a construction firm, was awarded a contract by the Respondent for construction of a Student Centre at the NSIT campus for ₹64,44,290 plus GST. The work was scheduled from 26 February 2016...4 MIN READ↗
Delhi High Court
Absent contractual stipulation, a purchaser cannot unilaterally pass through third-party liquidated damages to its supplier.
The Appellant placed a purchase order dated 07.05.2015 with the Respondent for networking products and allied material.4 MIN READ↗No articles match these filters.