LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Union of India & Others v. Hariom Projects Pvt. Ltd.

Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1044Decided 18 Sept 2026
Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(C) No. 33087 of 2026
Justice Aravind Kumar · Justice Prasanna B. Varale

Background

A government construction contract at NDA Khadakwasla led to disputes over payments and design; after a Dispute Resolution Board rejected the contractor's claims, the contractor sought interim relief under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act, which was dismissed by the District Judge, Pune. On appeal under Section 37, and while a separate Section 11 arbitrator-appointment application was also pending, the Bombay High Court appointed a Sole Arbitrator and additionally directed that the Section 37 appellate proceedings themselves be remitted to and treated as an application under Section 17 (interim relief powers) before that Arbitral Tribunal. The Union of India challenged only this remittal direction, not the arbitrator's appointment.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that the High Court's direction remitting a statutory Section 37 appeal to be treated as a Section 17 application before the Arbitral Tribunal could not be sustained, because the appellate jurisdiction under Section 37 is vested exclusively in a "Court" as defined under the Act, while an Arbitral Tribunal exercising Section 17 powers does not have appellate jurisdiction over a Section 9 order. The two powers are of a fundamentally different nature and cannot be interchanged even by consent of parties. The Court set aside the impugned order only to that limited extent, while leaving intact the constitution of the Arbitral Tribunal (which the parties agreed should continue, since it had already facilitated a supplementary agreement letting work proceed). All remaining disputes were left to be adjudicated by the Arbitral Tribunal.

Lesson Learnt

Even with mutual consent of the parties, a court cannot delegate or transfer its own statutory appellate function to an arbitral tribunal. The source and nature of judicial versus arbitral powers under the Arbitration Act are distinct and cannot be mixed, though parties remain free to separately approach the tribunal for interim relief under its own powers.

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