The fortnight in one page
India arbitration produced no single landmark in the last two weeks. It produced something more useful: a set of connected rulings that tell parties how to draft, where to file and what to expect from the courts. On 22 September the Bombay High Court held that interim orders of a foreign tribunal may be worth little in India without a direct enforcement route, and allowed a court to secure a US$6.69 million claim despite a tribunal already sitting abroad. On 23 September the Supreme Court settled where Section 34 challenges may be filed and enforced a contractual bar on pre-reference interest. On 25 September it referred an electric-vehicle exclusivity dispute to a retired Supreme Court judge. On 28 September the Delhi High Court appointed a former Supreme Court judge in a ₹182.50 crore lease dispute involving Amazon. On 29 September the Patna High Court held that a writ court cannot appoint an arbitrator where the contract points to a statutory tribunal. On 3 October the Supreme Court appointed Justice K.M. Joseph in the Smart City Kochi SEZ lease dispute.
This article reads those developments together, because the lessons sit in the connections. It covers the courts first, then foreign seats and enforcement, then public-sector contracts, then what the rulings mean for construction and infrastructure parties. It ends with takeaways for attorneys and expert witnesses.
A note on scope. The window is 22 September to 6 October 2026. Where a ruling was decided a few days before 22 September but came to light inside the window, we say so.
Where to challenge, what to enforce: the Supreme Court’s September rulings
The Supreme Court’s most useful contribution this fortnight was procedural clarity, delivered in three connected rulings.
Section 34 challenges can go to the District Court where there is no Commercial Court. On 23 September, a bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and Sanjeev Sachdeva decided Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd v. GSCO Infrastructure Pvt Ltd. The contract was a 2012 equipment-hire arrangement for mining in Sundargarh, Odisha. An arbitrator appointed by the Orissa High Court sat in Cuttack and made an award in October 2021. Mahanadi filed its Section 34 petitions in the Sundargarh District Court in December 2021. The Orissa High Court held that Cuttack was the seat and that the petitions were therefore filed in the wrong place and out of time. The Supreme Court reversed. It held that a High Court’s jurisdiction covers the whole State, so every Commercial Court, or District Court where none exists, within that territory can hear a Section 34 petition. It also drew the line between a seat and a venue: holding hearings in Cuttack, or appointing the arbitrator there, did not make Cuttack the juridical seat without an agreement to that effect.
For practitioners the lesson is drafting. Where a contract names a place for disputes but no seat, a party that files in the wrong court risks a limitation fight lasting years. Name the seat. Say it plainly. Do not rely on hearing locations.
Interest barred by contract stays barred. On the same day, Justices P.S. Narasimha and Alok Aradhe decided North Eastern Electric Power Corporation Ltd v. Astra Construction Pvt Ltd (2026 INSC 1036). A tribunal had awarded the contractor ₹3.30 crore across four claims, including 12 per cent annual pre-reference interest. Clause 54 of the General Conditions of Contract limited interest. The Commercial Court upheld that limit; the Meghalaya High Court restored the interest. The Supreme Court set the High Court order aside. It held that Section 31(7)(a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 gives way to party agreement, and that Clause 54, which dealt both with money withheld because of a dispute and with independent payment delays, was an express bar. NEEPCO had also invoked the clause in its defence, which defeated any waiver argument.
This is a quiet but costly point for contractors on public works. Standard-form government conditions often limit interest. A quantum expert building a damages model for a contractor claimant should therefore check, before modelling financing cost, whether the contract allows interest for the pre-reference period at all. If it does not, the model has to rest on another legal basis or leave that head out.
Section 37 is for courts, not tribunals. In Union of India v. Hariom Projects Pvt Ltd, a bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and Prasanna B. Varale (decided 18 September, a few days before our window) set aside a Bombay High Court direction. A District Judge had refused Section 9 relief in a dispute over infrastructure at NDA Khadakwasla. On appeal under Section 37, the High Court appointed an arbitrator and sent the pending appeal to the tribunal to be treated as a Section 17 application. The Supreme Court held that a tribunal under Section 17 does not exercise appellate jurisdiction over a court’s Section 9 order. The party remains free to apply to the tribunal for interim measures afresh. The ruling belongs to the same cluster and is worth reading alongside the others.
Referrals and appointments: retired judges as the default
The Supreme Court and High Courts continue to resolve high-value disputes by appointing retired Supreme Court judges as sole arbitrators. Three appointments in two weeks illustrate the habit.
On 25 September, Justices Aravind Kumar and Vipul M. Pancholi decided Kinetic Green Energy and Power Solutions Ltd v. Saera Electric Auto Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 13117 of 2026). The parties signed three agreements in August 2025: manufacturing, supply and distribution, and intellectual property. Saera was to manufacture exclusively for Kinetic Green for 20 years. Kinetic Green said the launch of Saera’s Mayuri vehicles broke the exclusivity and non-compete terms; Saera said Mayuri was a pre-existing business and the arrangement had not truly begun. The Court referred the dispute to arbitration, appointed Justice R.V. Raveendran as sole arbitrator and modified the earlier restraint so that Saera is held back only from the vehicles listed in specified annexures until interim applications are decided.
On 28 September, Justice Om Prakash Shukla of the Delhi High Court decided Amazon Seller Services Pvt Ltd v. Goodluck Buildtech Pvt Ltd (O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 443/2026). Amazon leased space at the Horizon Urban Logistics Park under a June 2022 deed. It alleged the landlord missed the February 2023 deadline for access and certificates, terminated in April 2026 and claimed about ₹182.50 crore. The landlord invoked force majeure. Amazon sought Section 9 relief to enter the premises and remove fixtures worth about ₹120 crore. The Court appointed Justice S. Ravindra Bhat (retired) as sole arbitrator and a Local Commissioner to inventory the assets within a week, saying that the commencement of arbitral proceedings should not be delayed.
On 3 October, Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran appointed Justice K.M. Joseph (retired) as arbitrator in the dispute between Smart City Kochi Infrastructure Pvt Ltd and Musthafa and Almana International Consultants over an SEZ sub-lease from January 2017. The unit never became operational and each side blamed the other. The Court left open which regime governs eviction, the SEZ Act or Kerala’s rent-control law, calling the question premature, and told the parties to approach the arbitrator within two weeks.
Two features stand out. First, courts are using appointment as a case-management tool: the Amazon order paired an arbitrator with a Local Commissioner so that evidence of asset condition is fixed before it is lost. Second, the Kochi order shows a court deferring a contested legal question to the tribunal rather than resolving it at the Section 11 stage. Both help parties who need speed. Both also mean that the evidentiary record, including expert inspection and valuation of assets, will be shaped in the first weeks of the arbitration.
Foreign seats and enforcement: what Indian courts will and will not do
If the Supreme Court tightened procedure, the High Courts tested how far Indian courts will stand behind arbitrations seated elsewhere and awards that must be collected in India. Three rulings matter for parties with cross-border contracts.
Foreign tribunal, Indian assets: Bombay High Court, 22 September. A Division Bench of Justices A.S. Gadkari and Kamal Khata decided Sunfield Global Pte Ltd v. Liberty Investments Pvt Ltd (Commercial Arbitration Appeal (L) No. 1634 of 2026). Sunfield, a Singapore company, supplied oils to Mumbai-based Liberty under six contracts between October 2024 and February 2025. Liberty admitted in writing that it owed US$66,92,500 and did not pay. Sunfield went to the Bombay High Court under Section 9 for security over Liberty’s Mumbai property. A tribunal was then constituted in November 2025 under the FOSFA rules, and the Single Judge dismissed the petition because a tribunal was in place.
The Division Bench disagreed. It reasoned that an interim order from a foreign tribunal cannot simply be executed in India. Section 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure treats a foreign judgment as conclusive once it is final, and the Bench noted there is no provision for executing an interim order. Asking a creditor to win interim relief abroad, obtain a foreign decree and then sue on it in India would be, in the Bench’s words, “cumbersome and wholly inefficacious”. So Section 9 relief remained available despite the tribunal, at least where the assets are in India and the foreign remedy is not effective. The Court directed Liberty to secure the claim with interest and costs and restrained it from transferring or encumbering the property.
The Bench relied on the Bombay High Court’s earlier decision in Norvic Shipping Asia Pte Ltd v. Zigma International, which treated the bar on court intervention after a tribunal is constituted as not absolute where the tribunal’s remedy is ineffective. The practical effect is to give foreign-seated claimants a route to freeze Indian assets without waiting for a final award. Counsel for Indian respondents will need to study it closely, because the argument that a constituted tribunal ousts the court is now harder to run.
Enforcing a Singapore award: Madras High Court, 21 September. Justice K. Kumaresh Babu declined to ease the attachment in SEPC Ltd v. GPE (India) Ltd. The judgment debtors had paid ₹120 crore and ₹154.63 crore remained outstanding on an award arising out of proceedings before the Singapore International Commercial Court. The Court had attached trade receivables to secure the balance from a pool of ₹499.62 crore. SEPC asked the Court to recall or suspend the attachment, warning that continued attachment risked a non-performing asset classification. It offered ₹7.50 crore a quarter. The Court refused, calling the affidavits vague on funding sources and saying it could not “bow down” to the NPA warning. It also doubted that the debtors could meet the instalments they proposed. The judgment sits one day outside the window.
For award creditors the message is that courts will look at the debtor’s disclosure, not just its distress. A debtor who wants relief from attachment must show where the money will come from. A forensic accountant who can map a debtor’s cash flows and receivables is useful at precisely this stage.
Arbitration does not shield a borrower from a lender’s regulatory process: Calcutta High Court, 23 September. In Kitply Industries Ltd v. Reserve Bank of India (W.P.A. No. 24869 of 2026), Justice Krishna Rao dismissed a challenge to a show-cause notice proposing to declare Kitply a wilful defaulter. Kitply had borrowed about ₹333.58 crore from SREI Equipment Finance, which alleged that Kitply disposed of 256 hectares of mortgaged land without approval. Kitply argued that the parallel arbitration should come first. The Court held that pendency of arbitration cannot stop a show-cause notice, relied on the RBI’s 2024 directions on wilful and large defaulters, which allow such a declaration where secured assets are disposed of without the lender’s consent, and noted that the tribunal had itself refused to stay the notice.
Borrowers in disputes with lenders should read this plainly. Starting or defending an arbitration does not pause regulatory classification. Where an asset-disposal allegation is in play, a forensic investigator’s reconstruction of what happened to the security can matter as much in the show-cause reply as in the arbitration.
A conflict inside the High Courts: writs against Section 37 orders
On 21 September, Justice B.P. Routray of the Orissa High Court held in State of Odisha v. Dhanurdhar Champatiray that writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227 are maintainable against a District Judge’s Section 37 order even though Section 37(3) bars a second appeal. He limited the power to cases of manifest illegality, perversity or patent lack of jurisdiction and expressly rejected routine merits review.
Eight days later the Patna High Court, in a different setting, refused to let a writ court appoint an arbitrator at all (discussed below). The Supreme Court has also repeatedly told High Courts that they have no appellate power over awards and should use supervisory powers with great circumspection. The Orissa ruling is careful to stay inside that line, but parties should expect respondents to test it. Counsel should assume a writ against a Section 37 order is possible in some High Courts and fiercely resisted in others.
Public-sector contracts: when the contract chooses a statutory forum
On 29 September, a Division Bench of the Patna High Court (Justices Sudhir Singh and Rajesh Kumar Verma) decided a case that will matter to anyone contracting with a State government. Bihar’s Mines and Geology Department had granted Mahadev Enclave Pvt Ltd a sand ghat settlement for 2015–2019. A dispute arose over adjustments to the settlement amount and payment. A Single Judge, exercising writ jurisdiction, appointed a sole arbitrator under the 1996 Act. The Department appealed.
The Division Bench set the appointment aside. Clause 9 of the Standard Bid Document sent disputes to the Bihar Public Works Disputes Arbitration Tribunal Act, 2008. Where a contract mandates a statutory mechanism, the Bench held, a writ court cannot appoint an arbitrator under the 1996 Act. It relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority v. Rama Kant Singh for the proposition that, where an agreement specifies a statutory arbitration tribunal, the 1996 Act does not apply, and it referred to Sections 11(8) and 12(1) of the Act. The parties were told to proceed under the 2008 Act.
The decision is a reminder that the label “arbitration” in a State contract does not always mean the 1996 Act. Several States run their own works-disputes tribunals. A contractor who has spent months building a case for a Section 11 appointment can lose that time if the bid document points elsewhere. Read the dispute clause and the State’s own statute before choosing the forum. If a statutory tribunal applies, the expert’s evidence will be heard under that tribunal’s procedure, and an expert report should be written to meet it.
Institutions and the courts: a quiet fortnight, with a clear direction
Exlitem India looked for rule changes, appointments and announcements from the Mumbai Centre for International Arbitration, the Indian International Arbitration Centre, the Hyderabad centre (IAMC) and GIFT City between 22 September and 6 October, and found none to report in this window. We prefer to say so than to invent a development.
The court rulings above nonetheless carry an institutional message. Every sole-arbitrator appointment by the Supreme Court or a High Court in this fortnight, from Kinetic Green to Amazon to Smart City Kochi, was an ad hoc appointment of a retired judge. Courts are still doing the work an institution would do: naming the arbitrator, fixing the timetable and managing interim relief. India’s institutional hubs are being built; the high-value caseload still flows to the courts and to ad hoc tribunals. That gap is the story for our flagship coverage of India’s arbitration hubs, and we will report any institutional announcement as soon as it is confirmed.
A second signal is judicial attitude to weak challenges. On 18 September, the Gujarat High Court (Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice D.N. Ray) upheld a ₹3.97 crore award against the Gujarat Housing Board in Gujarat Housing Board v. Cube Construction Engineering Ltd and imposed ₹3 lakh in costs, ₹2 lakh to the contractor and ₹1 lakh to the court registry, for casual Section 34 and 37 challenges. It predates our window by four days, but costs orders of this kind are small in money terms and large in message: statutory bodies that challenge every adverse award as a matter of routine should expect to pay for it.
Construction, infrastructure and real estate: what the rulings mean for delay and quantum claims
Almost every ruling above arises from a construction, infrastructure or property contract. That is not an accident; these sectors generate the largest claims and the longest delays. Read together, the decisions give contractors, developers and their experts a checklist.
Delay and who caused it. In the Gujarat Housing Board case, the contractor’s project in Bhuj was first designed as ground plus three floors and later cut to ground plus two because of seismic-zone limits. Disputes followed over delays, bill deductions, extra work and idle machinery. The tribunal awarded ₹3.97 crore out of claims exceeding ₹12 crore, and the High Court found no patent illegality or perversity in its reasoning on delay causation or the merits of each claim. Two points follow. A tribunal that reasons carefully through causation and awards a fraction of the claim is likely to see its award survive. And a claimant who inflates a claim, here more than three times the sum awarded, invites that result. Expert delay analysis should be conservative and tied to contemporaneous records.
Time and forum risk. The Mahanadi decision concerned a mining equipment-hire contract, not a building contract, but its lesson carries across infrastructure disputes: the award was made in October 2021 and the challenge was still being argued about forum nearly five years later. The Court restored the petitions, but the loss of time was real. For infrastructure employers and contractors alike, the seat clause is risk management, not boilerplate.
Interest is a drafting question before it is a damages question. The NEEPCO ruling shows that a contractor’s financing cost for the period before arbitration may be unrecoverable if the General Conditions bar it. A quantum expert instructed by a contractor should ask for the contract’s interest clause on day one and model alternatives: interest from the date of reference only, or recovery of finance cost as a direct loss head where the contract and law permit. An expert who builds a model that assumes pre-reference interest without checking the clause risks having that part of the report disregarded.
Joint development disputes and forfeiture. On 22 September, the Karnataka High Court (Justices D.K. Singh and H. Shanthi Bhushan) upheld forfeiture of a developer’s advance in a one-acre Bengaluru joint development. The 2014 agreement required completion within two years. The developer did not meaningfully begin for seven years. The tribunal cancelled the agreement and forfeited the deposit; the Commercial Court partly set that aside; the High Court restored the forfeiture, finding no patent illegality or breach of public policy. Real-estate parties who sit on a project should note that long inaction weighs against them. The decision also illustrates the narrow scope of Section 34: a court will not substitute its view on the commercial fairness of forfeiture.
Assets and inspection. The Amazon order is the best example in the fortnight of evidence preservation. A Local Commissioner was appointed to inventory fixtures valued at about ₹120 crore within a week. Where an arbitration will turn on the condition, ownership or value of physical assets, a court-appointed inventory early on can shape everything that follows. Technical experts, valuers and engineers who are available at short notice will be in demand. Parties should line up their inspection experts before they file a Section 9 application, not after.
Courts and security. Taken with Sunfield and SEPC, the cases show a court system willing to move fast on security and attachment where there is evidence of real risk to the claim, and unwilling to indulge delay by debtors.
What this means for attorneys and expert witnesses
For counsel. Treat the seat, the forum clause and the interest clause as the three provisions to check first in any dispute. The September rulings show that mistakes on any of them are expensive and, once made, hard to repair. Where assets are in India and the tribunal sits abroad, Sunfield gives a route to security, but one that rests on a Division Bench decision and a fact-specific finding that the foreign remedy was ineffective. Expect it to be contested. Where the counterparty is a State body, read the bid document for a statutory tribunal before drafting a Section 11 application.
For expert witnesses. Three themes recur. First, early evidence preservation: the Amazon Local Commissioner order shows courts will fix an asset record in days. Second, contractual limits on damages: a quantum model must start from what the contract permits, as NEEPCO shows. Third, debtor disclosure: in the Madras enforcement the court’s attention was on the debtor’s credibility and funding sources, work a forensic accountant does well.
What Exlitem India is watching. Whether other High Courts follow Sunfield; whether the Supreme Court says more on the limits of High Court writ jurisdiction over arbitration; and whether any of the Indian arbitral institutions announce appointments or rule changes in October. We will report each when it is confirmed.
Takeaways
• Name the seat. Mahanadi confirms that hearing locations and appointment venues do not make a seat. A clear seat clause avoids years of jurisdiction fighting.
• Check the interest clause before you model. NEEPCO enforces contractual bars on pre-reference interest. Quantum experts should read it first.
• A foreign seat does not always mean no Indian court. Sunfield allows Section 9 security over Indian assets where a foreign tribunal’s interim orders cannot be enforced directly.
• Section 37 belongs to the courts. Hariom Projects stops High Courts from sending interim-relief appeals to tribunals.
• State contracts may carry their own tribunal. The Patna High Court’s 29 September ruling shows a writ court cannot appoint an arbitrator under the 1996 Act where the bid document names a statutory tribunal.
• Arbitration does not pause regulatory action. Kitply lets a lender proceed towards a wilful-defaulter declaration while arbitration is pending.
• Frivolous challenges now cost money. Gujarat’s ₹3 lakh costs order is a warning to repeat challengers.
Position yourself where the legal industry looks for expertise - sign up on exlitem.com to get discovered by leading lawyers and high-value clients.
