LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Sapna Pugalia & Anr. vs. Getclarity Fintech Services Private Limited & Ors.

Original Miscellaneous Petition (Interim, Commercial) · 2026:DHC:8971Decided 9 Oct 2026New Delhi Bench
O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 472/2026CNR: DLHC010488322026
Justice Om Prakash Shukla

Background

The petitioners had moved the Court under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act against a fintech lending company and others seeking interim protection, but at the hearing decided not to pursue the petition any further for the time being.

Decision Breakdown

Counsel for the petitioners sought leave to withdraw the petition, with liberty to file it again later if the situation required. The Court granted this leave and liberty and dismissed the petition as withdrawn, along with any pending applications.

Lesson Learnt

Withdrawing a court petition "with liberty to file again" is a normal, no-fault procedural step: it preserves a litigant's right to come back later and is not a ruling against them on the merits of their dispute.

Search on eCourtsView Judgment (PDF)

More rulings in Arbitration & Commercial Law

Arbitration & Commercial LawSupreme Court of India

MS Sharma Enterprises v. National Building Construction Corporation

The Supreme Court dismissed Sharma Enterprises' appeal, upholding removal of pre-reference and pendente lite interest. The issue was whether the contract clause's closing words "or otherwise" acted as a blanket bar on interest. The Court held that under Section 31(7)(a) of the Arbitration Act, an arbitrator's power to award pre-award interest is subject to contrary agreement by the parties, and found the clause's "or otherwise" was a broad residuary term excluding such interest entirely, the arbitrator, being "a creature of the contract," had no power to award it once the contract excluded it. Post-award interest remained payable since that provision isn't subject to party contract.

Decided 15 Oct 2026Read case
Arbitration & Commercial LawDelhi High Court

Patil Construction and Infrastructure Limited vs. Union of India (Ministry of Road Transport & Highways) & Anr.

The government respondent raised no objection. Finding the arbitration genuinely advanced and both sides in agreement, the Court extended the sole arbitrator's mandate by 6 months, backdated to 20 September 2025, treating the gap period as regularised.

Decided 14 Oct 2026Read case
Arbitration & Commercial LawDelhi High Court

M/S Varaha Infra Limited vs. National Highways Authority of India

The Court disposed of the petition, giving Varaha Infra 45 days to commence arbitration. The existing interim protection continues only until the arbitral tribunal is constituted and a Section 17 application is considered, and only if the petitioner acts within the 45-day window; otherwise the protection lapses automatically. The Court expressed no view on the merits of the underlying dispute.

Decided 14 Oct 2026Read case
Arbitration & Commercial LawDelhi High Court

GAIL Gas Limited vs. Saraswati Concast Pvt. Ltd.

The trial court held Saraswati's objections were on time because the Speed Post receipt GAIL relied on did not show Saraswati's complete registered-office address, so the legal presumption that a correctly addressed posted letter counts as "received" could not apply. The High Court held its Article 227 supervisory power is narrow: it cannot re-weigh evidence or swap in an equally plausible reading of documents, only correct a clear excess or lack of jurisdiction. Since the trial court's reading of the incomplete address was reasonable, the High Court declined to interfere and dismissed GAIL's petition.

Decided 14 Oct 2026Read case
Arbitration & Commercial LawDelhi High Court

Abhoy Charan Bakshi vs. National Highways Authority of India & Ors.

The Court dismissed the petition, holding that its power under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act is extremely narrow: it cannot re-weigh evidence, substitute its own view for a "plausible" one taken by the arbitrators, or act as an appellate court correcting factual errors. The tribunal had found the disputed repair work fell within the contractor's existing scope of work, that the contractor hadn't proven it fulfilled conditions needed to get its security deposit released, and that the contractor itself had breached the contract. Since none of this met the high bar of being "patently illegal" or "perverse," the Court declined to interfere and upheld the award.

Decided 13 Oct 2026Read case
Arbitration & Commercial LawDelhi High Court

Gaurav Enterprises vs. Commissioner, Transport Department

Despite the Department's objection, the Court allowed the decree holder to withdraw its own petition, with liberty to file it again later if needed, subject to resolving any applicable stamp-duty requirements under the Indian Stamp Act, consistent with the Court's own precedent on that point.

Decided 12 Oct 2026Read case