LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Haryana Tourism Limited vs. M/s Kandhari Beverages Limited

Civil Appeal · 2022 INSC 32Decided 11 Jan 2022
Civil Appeal No. 266 of 2022
M.R. Shah · B.V. Nagarathna

Background

Haryana Tourism Limited had contracted with a beverage company for the supply of soft drinks at its tourist complexes, with the company also required to spend Rs. 20 lakh on brand promotion activities like a "Mango Mela" and musical nights. A dispute arose over the promotional spending, the Corporation terminated the contract, and the matter went to arbitration, where the arbitrator awarded the Corporation Rs. 9.5 lakh and rejected the company's counter-claim of Rs. 13.92 lakh. The company's objections to the award were dismissed by the Additional District Judge under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, but on further appeal under Section 37, the Punjab and Haryana High Court went into the merits of the dispute and quashed the arbitral award itself, prompting the Corporation to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court allowed the Corporation's appeal and restored the arbitral award, holding that the High Court had exceeded its limited jurisdiction under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act. Courts hearing a Section 37 appeal (which itself reviews a Section 34 challenge to an award) cannot re-examine the merits of a case as if hearing a first appeal against a trial court decree: an arbitral award can be set aside only on narrow grounds such as being contrary to the fundamental policy of Indian law, the interest of India, justice or morality, or being patently illegal. Since none of those grounds applied here, and the High Court had effectively re-decided the underlying dispute on facts, its judgment could not stand.

Lesson Learnt

Courts reviewing an arbitration award under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration Act have a very narrow, limited scope of interference and cannot substitute their own view of the merits for the arbitrator's findings, reinforcing the principle that arbitration is meant to provide a largely final and independent dispute-resolution process.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)

More rulings in Arbitration & Commercial Law

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