Greetings! This edition provides a recap of arbitration judgments and happenings of July and August 2026. Stay informed, stay ahead – happy reading!
Global Highlights
SCCA brings 2026 Mediation Rules and Arbitration Small Claims Procedure into force
The Saudi Center for Commercial Arbitration(SCCA) introduced the 2026 Mediation Rules and Small Claims Procedure replacing the 2018 ODR framework as Appendix IV to the 2023 Arbitration Rules. which took effect on 1 August 2026. The Small Claims Procedure has been designed for disputes not exceeding SAR 200,000 in value, wherein, the SCCA Court promptly appoints a sole arbitrator who must render a final award within 30 days of appointment, with proceedings conducted primarily on written submissions unless the arbitrator directs a hearing, held electronically. For lower-value Saudi-seated disputes, this offers a materially faster and cheaper track than standard SCCA arbitration.
Honduras ratifies the ICSID Convention
On 17.07.2026, Honduras deposited its instrument of ratification of the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States with the World Bank, becoming the 159th contracting State to the Convention. The Convention will enter into force for Honduras on 16.08.2026.
Domestic Highlights
Pre-deposit clauses binding contractors alone face doubt over unequal treatment of parties – Santosh Associate Private Limited v. Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd., SLP (C) No. 31245 of 2025
The Supreme Court dismissed a contractor’s appeal against dismissal of its claim for failing to furnish a 10% pre-deposit but doubted the correctness of S.K. Jain v. Haryana. It held that a requirement for pre-deposit which obliges only the contractor sits uneasily with Section 18’s equal-treatment mandate. The Court disagreed that ICOMM Tele Ltd. vs. Punjab State Water Supply impliedly overruled S.K. Jain. The Supreme Court bench has requested the Chief Justice of India to consider referring S.K. Jain‘s correctness to a larger Bench. Practitioners should watch this reference closely, since the refundable-deposit rationale shielding such clauses may not survive.
Common arbitrators must explain an unexplained departure from their own earlier view on identical contract terms – Ssangyong Engineering and Co. Ltd. v. National Highways Authority of India, FAO (OS) (Comm) No. 132 of 2024 and FAO (OS) (Comm) No. 136 of 2024
The Delhi High Court upheld setting aside of an award where two common arbitrators, ruling on a related contract with identical clauses, had earlier classified a payment certificate as an IPC but later classified an equivalent certificate as a Final Statement, without explaining the shift. It held this unexplained departure strikes at consistency and reasoned adjudication, rendering the award contrary to the most basic notions of justice under Section 34(2)(b)(ii). The Court’s view was that a tribunal’s unexplained self-contradiction on identical facts is not mere possible error of interpretation. Parties nominating common arbitrators across related disputes should flag this ground wherever a tribunal shifts position without reasons.
Delhi High Court sets out a compliance regime for stamp duty in Section 36 enforcement petitions – URC Construction (P) Ltd. v. Airports Authority of India, OMP (ENF) (Comm) No. 155 of 2026
The Delhi High Court issued detailed practice directions requiring strict compliance with the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, the Registration Act, 1908, in all Section 36 enforcement petitions. Every petition must now carry a first-page declaration on the award’s date, the stamp duty paid, and the amount awarded, backed by verified proof of payment. Petitions filed after 13 August 2026 accompanied by an inadequately stamped award will inter alia, be returned under objections and the award impounded. The Court balanced strict enforcement against ongoing matters by directing that petitions will not be dismissed for want of stamp duty, with interim orders continuing till the defect is cured, and permitting withdrawal with liberty to restore once stamp duty is paid.
Article 227 revision against a Tribunal’s Section 16 order lies only on a patent lack of inherent jurisdiction – Manash Kamal Bezboruah v. Bokahola Tea Company Private Limited & Ors., Civil Appeal Nos. 8845-8846/2026
The Supreme Court set aside an order entertaining an Article 227 revision against an Arbitral Tribunal’s rejection of a Section 16 application under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“1996 Act”) by non-signatory respondents seeking their removal from the reference. While doing so, the Court reiterated that whether a non-signatory is a veritable party is a fact intensive inquiry for the Tribunal itself under kompetenz-kompetenz, and not the High Court. Court further reasoned that High Courts must record a specific jurisdictional defect finding before entertaining any Article 227 challenge to interlocutory arbitral orders.
Section 33(5) IBC approval lapse only delays and does not void a liquidator’s arbitration notice – Tecpro Systems Limited (In Liquidation) v. Reliance Infrastructure Limited, Comm. Arb. Appl. No. 245 of 2026
The Bombay High Court allowed a Section 11 application, holding that a liquidator’s arbitration notice issued without prior NCLT approval under Section 33(5) IBC is merely ineffective, not void, until approval follows. Unlike Section 28, which expressly voids a resolution professional’s unapproved actions, Section 33 attaches no such consequence to liquidators, making the defect curable. As approval predated the Section 11 filing, the notice took effect retroactively and the reference stood.
Arbitration clause remains valid and enforceable even after change of name of a company – Newgen IT Technologies Ltd. v. Newgen Software Technologies Ltd., FAO (Comm) No. 112/2025
The Delhi High Court set aside a Commercial Court order refusing reference under Section 8, holding that a party cannot escape its arbitration obligations by merely changing its corporate name. Invoking the separability doctrine, the Court held that an arbitration agreement survives independent of the underlying contract, leaving questions of its existence and validity to the tribunal under Section 16. Corporate rebranding thus offer no escape route from arbitration, with jurisdictional objections left to be decided by the arbitrator.
Setting aside of award does not revive the requirement of a fresh Section 21 notice – Cosmo Retail Solutions Private Limited v. Sumant Agarwal & Ors., Arb. P. No. 293/2026
The Delhi High Court allowed a Section 11 application, holding that a fresh Section 21 notice is not required merely because the original award was set aside. The Court reasoned that Section 21 notice serves only to intimate reference to arbitration and freeze limitation, and once that purpose is served, its function stands exhausted regardless of subsequent proceedings. A single notice thus suffices across successive arbitral proceedings arising from the same dispute, sparing parties a fresh limitation hurdle each time an award is set aside.
Deposit order under Section 36(3) of the 1996 Act for stay of an award is not appealable – Rajasthan State Warehousing Corporation v. Origo Commodities India Private Limited, Civil Misc. Appeal No. 2450/2026
The Rajasthan High Court dismissed an appeal against a Commercial Court order directing 100% deposit for stay of an arbitral award, holding that an interim deposit order under Section 36(3) is not appealable under Section 37. Conscious of the fact that the 1996 Act is a self-contained code, permitting appeals against conditional stay orders would undermine speedy enforcement and minimal court interference, the Court rejected the reliance on Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act and held that it creates no independent right of appeal, its proviso confining appealable orders to those under Order XLIII CPC and Section 37 only.
A party able to show ex-facie nullity in an MSME award can be exempted from the 75% pre-deposit rule – Wapcos Limited v. Virgo Aqua, FAO (OS) (Comm) No. 97/2024
In a Section 37 appeal, the Delhi High Court set aside an order directing the appellant to deposit 75% of the awarded amount under Section 19 of the MSMED Act before hearing the Section 34 petition on merits. The Court held that while Section 19 presupposes a valid award, it cannot be construed to compel pre-deposit before a party is even permitted to argue that the award itself is non-est. Where a party sets out an ex-facie case of nullity, courts under Section 34 or 37 cannot decline to examine the issue merely for want of pre-deposit. The ruling gives MSME award-debtors a threshold route to contest nullity without first clearing the pre-deposit bar.
Disclaimer
The content provided in this newsletter is intended for general awareness and should not be considered as legal advice. Readers are advised to consult with a qualified legal professional regarding any specific issues mentioned herein. If you have any questions about any of these developments or would like to see something different next month, reach out to us at knowledge@sarthaklaw.com.