Greetings! This edition provides a recap of arbitration judgments rendered in June 2026. Stay informed, stay ahead – happy reading!
Global Highlights
UK Appeals Court upholds India’s defense of adjudicative immunity, citing Article III of the New York Convention – CC/Devas (Mauritius) Ltd. & Ors. v. The Republic of India [2026] EWCA Civ 797
An English Court of Appeal recently dismissed an appeal, holding that India’s ratification of the New York convention, 1958 does not amount to a submission to the adjudicative jurisdiction of the English Courts under Section 2(2) of the State Immunity Act, 1978. Article III of the New York Convention states that awards must be enforced in accordance with the rules of procedure of the territory where the award is relied upon. The Court held that state immunity acts as a rule of procedure, meaning that a state can raise it as a defence in the same way as it could raise defences like limitation, jurisdiction, etc. The bench rejected Appellants reliance on the English Supreme court decision in Infrastructure Services Luxembourg v. Kingdom of Spain, on the ground that the issue therein was the ICSID convention which has no rules of procedure qualifier and expressly protects state from immunity only at the enforcement stage. This judgement reaffirms India’s ability to invoke sovereign immunity against enforcement of investment treaty awards passed in England, merely on the basis of having ratified the New York Convention.
Domestic Highlights
Existence of an arbitration clause cannot displace the statutory jurisdiction of consumer forums – T.K.A. Padmamabhan v. Abhiyan Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd., Through Its Secretary, Civil Appeal No. 10724 of 2016
Setting aside an order of the National Consumer Dispute Resolution Commission, the Supreme Court referred parties back to the consumer forum. The apex court applied the restraint contained in the proviso to Section 12(4) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and held that a complaint which has been admitted by the District Forum, cannot be transferred to any other court, tribunal or authority set up by or under any other law for the time being in force.
Gujarat High Court invokes Article 227 powers to restore wrongly dismissed arbitration proceedings – Pandya Naresh Chandra Through POA Gaurang Bhavsar v. Shalin Infrastructure and Ors., Special Civil Appl. No. 558 of 2026
Holding that arbitration proceedings can be terminated only as per Section 32(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“1996Act”), the Gujarat High Court recently exercised powers under Article 227 of Constitution of India and set aside an arbitral tribunal’s order. The Tribunal had rejected a Statement of claim merely on account of non-production of the original power of attorney. The court relying upon an established position of law that non-production of a power of attorney is a curable irregularity, found the Tribunal’s approach to be hyper technical and contrary to the objectives of the 1996 Act.
A Section 16 order on jurisdiction can only be challenged, post award, under Section 34 of the 1996 Act – GS Sridevi v. Shri H Mahadev Goud, WP No. 10641 of 2026
The Karnataka High Court reiterates that an order of the arbitrator rejecting a jurisdictional challenge under Section 16 of the 1996 Act cannot be challenged under writ jurisdiction and the party has to wait till issuance of the award and then challenge it under Section 34 of the Act.
A no claim certificate cannot bar appointment of arbitrator – Rajpath Contractors and Engineers Ltd. v. Union of India, AP-COM 247 of 2026
Referring a dispute arising out of a contract for the construction of an Eastern Railway bridge and reiterating the now settled position of law, the Calcutta High Court has held that a no claim certificate would not make the dispute non-arbitrable or oust the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal.
HC reiterates the twin test of jurisdiction in a Section 34 petition – Kanchan Konwer and Anr. v. Tushar Kanti Jana, AP 48 of 2026
While dismissing a Section 34 petition on the ground of maintainability, the Calcutta High Court held that in order for a court to admit a petition challenging an arbitral award, parties must satisfy the dual requirement of pecuniary as well as territorial jurisdiction of such court. The two requirements operate cumulatively and not alternatively. In the facts of the case, the Development Agreement provided that any dispute shall be subject to the jurisdiction of the courts within whose territorial limits, the subject property is situated. The court held that since the property is situated in Alipore, any challenge to the award shall lie before the Commercial Court, Alipore. Accordingly, it held that the present forum could not be regarded as the “Court” under Section 2(1)(e) of the 1996 Act for entertaining the Section 34 petition.
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.