Delhi Transportation and Tourism Development Corporation vs. Sunehari Bagh Builders Pvt. Ltd.

First Appeal from Order (Commercial) · 2026:DHC:7307-DBDecided 1 Sept 2026New Delhi Bench
FAO (COMM) 340/2025CNR: DLHC010985012025
Justice Anil Kshetarpal · Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar

Background

The respondent-contractor had built a Disaster Management and Training Centre for the appellant (a Delhi government corporation) that was contractually due for completion in about 120 days from November 2014 but was actually finished only in March 2016. After a series of contractual steps, extension of time approved in 2017, a final bill submitted only in 2018, and a multi-stage internal dispute-resolution process required by the contract before arbitration could be invoked, the contractor finally sought appointment of an arbitrator in November 2019. An arbitral tribunal awarded the contractor over Rs. 1.42 crore in 2022, and a Commercial Court later upheld this award except on one minor claim, leaving only the question of limitation to be argued in this appeal.

Decision Breakdown

The appellant argued the three-year limitation period for invoking arbitration should be counted from the work's original completion date (March 2016), which would make the 2019 arbitration request too late. The High Court disagreed, holding that the applicable limitation provision (Article 137, not Article 18, of the Limitation Act) starts running only when the contractor's right to actually apply for an arbitrator "accrues", and under this contract's mandatory multi-step dispute-resolution clause, that right did not mature until the contractor had gone through each required stage (Engineer, Superintendent, Chief Engineer, Dispute Redressal Committee) and only then approached for arbitrator appointment, which it did within about a month of completing that internal process. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

Lesson Learnt

Where a government contract requires a contractor to first exhaust a multi-step internal grievance process before invoking arbitration, the limitation clock for seeking arbitration does not start from the date the work was completed: it starts only once the contractor's right to actually demand arbitration has matured by completing that internal process.

Arbitration & Commercial LawSupreme Court of India

Modern Asset v. KNK Constructions Private Limited

The Supreme Court held that an arbitration clause survives termination of the underlying contract (the "doctrine of separability") and that, at the Section 11 reference stage, courts only check for the prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement: deeper questions about the effect of the resolution plan are for the arbitrator. It confirmed that while the IBC's "clean slate" principle extinguishes creditors' claims against the insolvent company once a resolution plan is approved, it does not extinguish the claims the company itself (through its SRA) may have against its own debtors, since the Resolution Professional had not raised a counter-claim on KNK's behalf during the insolvency process. However, noting the inequity of letting KNK recover fresh dues on the same contract while Modern Asset's own claim had been wiped out to 0.72 %, and following its own recent precedent in Ujaas Energy, the Court modified the High Court's order: Modern Asset may raise its extinguished claim in the arbitration solely as a set-off against any amount it is found to owe KNK, but cannot use it to claim any fresh recovery.

Decided 8 Oct 2026Read case
Arbitration & Commercial LawDelhi High Court

S And P Infrastructure Developers (Pvt) Ltd vs. National Highways Authority of India

The Court held that the Joint Registrar's order overlooked an earlier ruling of this Court (M/s URC Construction (P) Ltd. v. Airports Authority of India) establishing that an instrument must be stamped at or before execution, with any delay attracting penalty, not just a top-up payment. Since the Joint Registrar's order was not in line with the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, the Court set it aside. The decree holder's counsel then sought to withdraw the petition with liberty to refile once the stamp duty issue was properly resolved, which the Court granted.

Decided 8 Oct 2026Read case
Arbitration & Commercial LawSupreme Court of India

Shubham Equipment Private Limited & Anr. v. Rothwell Water Company Limited & Ors.

The Supreme Court held that the Licence Agreement, the JVA, and the MoU each covered different subject matter (technology licensing, the joint venture company, and logistics services respectively), so the JVA and MoU's own arbitration clauses, providing for arbitration in Mumbai under Indian law, governed the disputes arising under them, not the Licence Agreement's Korea clause. Both agreements also contained "entire agreement" clauses showing they were meant to stand independently. The Court restricted itself to the limited inquiry required at the reference stage under Section 11(6-A), whether an arbitration agreement prima facie exists, and left deeper questions, including whether a non-signatory subsidiary (RBIPL) could be bound, to the arbitrator. It allowed the petitions and appointed a former Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court as the sole arbitrator.

Decided 8 Oct 2026Read case
Arbitration & Commercial LawDelhi High Court

M/S Redcliffe Lifetech Pvt Ltd vs. Connect and Heal Primary Care Pvt. Ltd.

Since the dispute was resolved, the petitioner's counsel sought leave to withdraw the petition rather than continue with it. The Court granted leave and dismissed the petition as withdrawn, along with any pending applications.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Arbitration & Commercial LawDelhi High Court

M/S Redcliffe Lifetech Pvt. Ltd. vs. Lifespan Wellness Private Limited

The Court reiterated that at the stage of appointing an arbitrator under Section 11, it need only check whether an arbitration agreement exists on its face, not decide the merits of the dispute. Finding the arbitration clause undisputed, the Court appointed a named advocate as sole arbitrator under the aegis of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC), leaving all other objections (including arbitrability and jurisdiction) to be decided by the arbitrator.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Arbitration & Commercial LawDelhi High Court

M/S. Keshari Multi Functional Complex Pvt Ltd vs. Rail Land Development Authority

Because the awarded amount was already deposited pursuant to the earlier stay order, the Court held nothing further survived for consideration in the present enforcement petition. It disposed of the petition, giving the decree holder liberty to refile later after paying the proper stamp duty (and any penalty) under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case