The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI)
Circular
IBBI notifies International Valuation Standards for valuations under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016
IBBI, vide Circular No. IBBI/RV/93/2026 dated April 1, 2026, has notified the International Valuation Standards (IVS), as issued and updated by the International Valuation Standards Council (IVSC), as the applicable valuation standards for valuations conducted under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 and the regulations framed thereunder. The circular has been issued to ensure transparent, objective, and credible valuation processes within the insolvency framework.
The notified standards shall apply to valuations undertaken under Regulation 35(1)(c) of the IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016, Regulation 35(3) of the IBBI (Liquidation Process Regulations), 2016, Regulation 3(1)(b) of the IBBI (Voluntary Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2017, Regulation 39(1)(c) of the IBBI (Pre-packaged Insolvency Resolution Process) Regulations, 2021, and Regulation 30(2) of the IBBI (Bankruptcy Process Regulations for Personal Guarantors to Corporate Debtors) Regulations, 2019. The circular has come into force with immediate effect and shall apply to all valuations conducted under the Code and regulations made thereunder until further orders.
Source: https://ibbi.gov.in//uploads/legalframwork/b176b05d02cba50ae0d3279ff6ed553e.pdf
Judicial Curve
Anjani Technoplast Ltd. v. Shubh Gautam
The Hon’ble Supreme Court examined whether proceedings under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”) could be invoked for enforcement of a money decree arising out of loan transactions between the parties. The respondent had advanced short-term loans to the appellant under agreements carrying stipulated rates of interest, for which cheques were issued and later dishonoured, which subsequently culminated in proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, compromise arrangements. These dealings ultimately culminated in a money decree passed by the Delhi High Court in favour of the respondent. Instead of pursuing execution of the decree under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the respondent initiated corporate insolvency resolution process (“CIRP”) against the appellant under Section 7 of the IBC, contending that the decretal amount constituted a “financial debt” under Section 5(8) of the IBC.
The Court observed that while the existence of debt may not be disputed, the IBC cannot be deployed as a recovery mechanism or as a substitute for execution proceedings. The Court had taken note that disputes regarding computation of the outstanding amount remained pending before the Delhi High Court, including an application seeking redetermination of the decretal dues. Pursuant to which the Court reiterated that insolvency proceedings are intended to address genuine cases of insolvency and financial distress, and not to enforce money decrees or exert pressure on a solvent entity. Referring to Section 65 of the IBC, the Court emphasized that the insolvency process cannot be invoked for purposes other than insolvency resolution and, on the facts of the case, characterised the initiation of CIRP as an abuse of process.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and restored the NCLT’s order dismissing the Section 7 application. The Court held that the respondent’s appropriate remedy was to pursue execution of the money decree under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, rather than invoke the IBC framework against a running and solvent company. The respondent was granted liberty to pursue execution proceedings in accordance with law, and costs of Rs. 5 lakhs were imposed upon the respondent.
Source: https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2022/35192/35192_2022_6_1501_70385_Judgement_23-Apr-2026.pdf
Vedanta Ltd. v. Bhuvan Madan, Resolution Professional of Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. & Ors. –
The Hon’ble NCLAT, Principal Bench, New Delhi, considered whether the Committee of Creditors (“CoC”) had acted arbitrarily in rejecting an addendum submitted by Vedanta Ltd. after conclusion of the challenge process and in approving the resolution plan of Adani Enterprises Ltd. The appellant contended that the addendum was merely clarificatory in nature and that its plan, being the highest in value, ought to have been considered by the CoC.
The Appellate Tribunal observed that the addendum effectively modified the resolution plan and could not be treated as a mere clarification. It noted that the RFRP and process documents explicitly prohibited any modifications – upward or downward, to the financial proposal after the closure of the challenge process. The Appellate Tribunal further noted that accepting such revisions would be untenable as it would require reopening the process and granting equal opportunity to all resolution applicants. The Appellate Tribunal further held that the CoC had duly considered the competing plans and evaluation reports while exercising its commercial wisdom.
Reaffirming the limited scope of judicial review over commercial decisions of the CoC, the NCLAT held that no material irregularity had occurred during the CIRP and that the CoC’s commercial decision could not be interfered with. Accordingly, the appeals were dismissed and the approval of Adani Enterprises Ltd.’s resolution plan was upheld.
Source: https://ibbi.gov.in//uploads/order/2026-05-04-171529-wp4bf-196829612821b02b0303e49c867ec585.pdf
Vinay Bhadauria v. Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India
The Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court considered whether the Special Court at Gwalior had territorial jurisdiction to entertain a complaint filed under Sections 19, 68, 69, 70, 74(1) and 235A of IBC in light of the special jurisdictional framework under the IBC and the Companies Act, 2013. The petitioners sought quashing of the complaint and subsequent proceedings on the ground that the corporate debtor’s registered office was situated in New Delhi and, therefore, only the designated Special Court at Delhi could exercise jurisdiction under the statutory framework of the IBC and the Companies Act, 2013.
The respondent contended that the alleged acts of non-cooperation and contraventions had been committed within the jurisdiction of Gwalior and constituted continuing offences, thereby attracting Sections 177, 178 and 179 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. However, the High Court observed that Section 60(1) of the IBC specifically confers jurisdiction upon the NCLT having territorial jurisdiction over the place where the registered office of the corporate person is situated, and that offences under the IBC are triable only by the Special Court designated for such jurisdiction under Sections 435 and 436 of the Companies Act, 2013.
Accordingly, the High Court held that the Special Court at Gwalior lacked territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and directed the respondent to file the complaint before the competent Special Court at New Delhi. The Court further directed that if the complaint was refiled within three months, the competent court was expected to ignore limitation, if any.
Source: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/145917691/
Competition Commission of India (CCI)
Notification
CCI approves merger of A1 Agri Global, B.N. Agritech and Salasar Balaji Overseas into BN Agrochem
CCI has approved the proposed merger of A1 Agri Global Limited, B.N. Agritech Limited and Salasar Balaji Overseas Private Limited into BN Agrochem Limited pursuant to a Scheme of Amalgamation approved through a board resolution dated June 28, 2025. Following the proposed combination, BN Agrochem Limited will remain the surviving entity.
BN Agrochem Limited is engaged in the procurement and trading of soyabean oil and palmolein oil, while B.N. Agritech Limited is involved in procurement, refining, repackaging and trading of crude edible oils. Salasar Balaji Overseas Private Limited undertakes procurement, repackaging and trading of edible oils, and A1 Agri Global Limited is engaged in sourcing, crushing, refining and trading of mustard seeds and edible oils. (Press Release No. 08/2026-27 dated April 28, 2026).
Source: https://www.cci.gov.in/media-gallery/press-release/details/646/0
CCI approves restructuring and merger of Vishakha Renewables’ business into Vishakha Glass
CCI has approved the proposed restructuring of the renewables business of Vishakha Renewables Private Limited (VRPL) and its merger into Vishakha Glass Private Limited (VGPL). The proposed combination involves the transfer of VRPL’s pipes and mouldings divisions to Progressive Pipes Private Limited on a slump sale basis, followed by the amalgamation of Vishakha Renewables 1 Private Limited, Vishakha Metals Private Limited and Vishakha Metals 1 Private Limited into VRPL, and subsequently, the merger of VRPL into Vishakha Glass Private Limited.
VRPL is engaged in manufacturing solar system components, irrigation systems, pipes and plastic products, while VGPL manufactures solar glass for solar systems. The other entities involved are primarily engaged in manufacturing solar panel components, aluminium frames and metal components. (Press Release No. 07/2026-27 dated April 20, 2026).
Source: https://www.cci.gov.in/media-gallery/press-release/details/645/0
CCI approves Torrent Power’s acquisition of Nabha Power Limited
CCI has approved the proposed acquisition of 100% equity shares and non-cumulative optionally convertible redeemable preference shares in Nabha Power Limited by Torrent Power Limited from L&T Power Development Limited. The proposed combination relates to the acquisition of the target entity on a fully diluted basis.
Torrent Power Limited, part of the Torrent Group, is engaged in power generation, transmission, distribution and manufacturing of power transmission cables, with the group also operating in the pharmaceuticals and gas distribution sectors. Nabha Power Limited is a wholly owned subsidiary of L&T Power Development Limited and operates a 2×700 MW supercritical thermal power plant at Rajpura, Punjab, since 2014. (Press Release No. 04/2026-27 dated April 7, 2026).
Source: https://www.cci.gov.in/media-gallery/press-release/details/642/0
CCI approves Indriya Limited’s acquisition of stake in Aditya Birla Housing Finance Limited
CCI has approved the proposed acquisition of equity shares amounting to 14.286% of the post-issue paid-up equity share capital of Aditya Birla Housing Finance Limited by Indriya Limited through a preferential issue on a private placement basis. The proposed combination relates to the acquisition of the stake on a fully diluted basis.
Indriya Limited is an investment holding company and currently does not have operations in India. Aditya Birla Housing Finance Limited is a housing finance company registered with the National Housing Bank and is engaged in providing home loans, loans against property, construction finance loans and lease rental discounting loans. (Press Release No. 03/2026-27 dated April 7, 2026).
Source: https://www.cci.gov.in/media-gallery/press-release/details/641/0
CCI approves Coastal Cedar’s acquisition in Fleur Hotels and restructuring of Lemon Tree group
CCI has approved the proposed acquisition of certain equity shares in Fleur Hotels Limited by Coastal Cedar Investments B.V. along with the internal restructuring of the Lemon Tree Hotels Limited group through amalgamation and demerger. The proposed combination involves restructuring of various wholly-owned subsidiaries of Lemon Tree Hotels Limited operating in the hotel sector in India.
Coastal Cedar Investments B.V., incorporated in the Netherlands, is wholly owned and managed by the Warburg Pincus Group. Lemon Tree Hotels Limited is engaged in the hospitality sector catering to business and leisure travellers, while Fleur Hotels Limited owns and leases hotels directly and through its subsidiaries. (Press Release No. 02/2026-27 dated April 7, 2026).
Source: https://www.cci.gov.in/media-gallery/press-release/details/640/0
Judicial Curve
Keshav Bihani v. Competition Commission of India & Ors.
The Hon’ble National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”), Principal Bench, New Delhi, upheld the order passed by CCI finding M/s Hari Narayan Bihani and its partner, Keshav Bihani, liable for cartelisation and bid-rigging in relation to Indian Railways tenders for polyacetal protective tubes. The Appellants challenged the CCI’s findings and the imposition of liability under Sections 27 and 48 of the Competition Act, 2002, contending inter alia that Section 48 could not be invoked against individuals for imposition of penalty.
Rejecting the contentions, the NCLAT observed that incriminating email exchanges, common IP addresses, admissions by cartel participants, and the leniency application filed by another entity clearly established coordination amongst the parties in relation to bid prices and tender allocation. The Tribunal reiterated that under the Competition Act, even tacit understandings and conduct aimed at reducing competition are sufficient to establish cartelisation, and that such conduct may be proved through circumstantial evidence.
The NCLAT further held that the Appellants had failed to dispute receipt of the incriminating emails and had never sought cross-examination before the CCI. Accordingly, finding no infirmity in the CCI’s findings or the imposition of liability under Section 48, the NCLAT dismissed both appeals.
Source: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/104528196/
Securities & Exchange Board of India (SEBI)
SEBI grants one-time relaxation for extension of validity of observation letters
SEBI, vide Circular No. HO/49/11/11(123)2026-CFD-RAC-DIL2/I/8760/2026 dated April 7, 2026, has granted a one-time relaxation extending the validity of SEBI observation letters expiring between April 1, 2026 and September 30, 2026, till September 30, 2026. The relaxation has been introduced in light of prevailing uncertain market conditions, ongoing geopolitical tensions in the Middle East, and subdued investor participation affecting issuers’ capital raising plans.
The circular provides that the extension shall be subject to an undertaking from the lead manager confirming compliance with Schedule XVI of the SEBI (Issue of Capital and Disclosure Requirements) Regulations, 2018 while submitting the updated offer document to SEBI. The circular has come into force with immediate effect.
SEBI relaxes registration and subscription norms for Not for Profit Organizations on Social Stock Exchange
SEBI, vide Circular No. HO/49/14/(10)2026-CFD-POD1/I/9380/2026 dated April 15, 2026, has revised the Social Stock Exchange framework to facilitate ease of fund raising and encourage greater participation by Not-for-Profit Organizations (NPOs). The circular extends the registration period for NPOs on the Social Stock Exchange from two years to three years without undertaking fund raising from the Social Stock Exchange, and reduces the minimum subscription requirement for issuance of Zero Coupon Zero Principal Instruments from 75% to 50%, provided that the Social Stock Exchange prior to granting in-principle approval for such partial fund raising, is required to undertake due-diligence to satisfy themselves that the funds raised towards the object(s) are capable of being deployed in a meaningful manner, taking into consideration the subscription scenarios disclosed in the Fund Raising Document. The circular further prescribes disclosure requirements in cases of under-subscription and has come into effect immediately.
SEBI introduces fast-track mechanism for processing placement memorandums of AIFs
SEBI, vide Circular No. HO/19/19/11(2)2026-AFD-RAC2 I/10624/2026 dated April 30, 2026, has introduced a fast-track mechanism for processing placement memorandums (PPMs) of Alternative Investment Funds (AIFs) as an ease of doing business measure. Under the revised framework, Angel Funds and AIF schemes other than Large Value Funds for Accredited Investors (LVFs) may launch schemes and circulate PPMs after 30 days of filing with SEBI, unless otherwise advised. The circular also prescribes timelines for first close, filing requirements and mandatory disclaimer clauses in PPMs, while placing responsibility on Merchant Bankers and AIF managers for ensuring accuracy and completeness of disclosures. The circular has come into force with immediate effect and applies to PPMs of non-LVF schemes pending as of date, as well.
Reserve Bank of India (RBI)
RBI issues guidelines to facilitate faster cross-border inward payments
The RBI, vide Circular No. RBI/2026-27/08 dated April 9, 2026, has issued guidelines to facilitate faster cross-border inward payments in line with the Payments Vision 2025 and the G20 roadmap for cross-border payments. The circular directs banks to immediately inform customers upon receipt of inward payment messages, undertake reconciliation and confirmation of nostro account credits at frequent intervals not exceeding one hour, and endeavour to credit inward remittances received during foreign exchange market hours within the same business day, subject to compliance with FEMA and other regulatory requirements. The RBI has also encouraged banks to implement straight through processing for resident individuals and provide digital interfaces for foreign exchange transactions and related documentation. The directions shall come into effect six months from the date of the circular.
Source:https://rbidocs.rbi.org.in/rdocs/notification/PDFs/NT083C6ADC9FA8C24AB29757536C709EA939.PDF
RBI amends stressed asset resolution framework for accounts impacted by calamities
The RBI, vide Directions RBI/2026-27/44 dated April 29, 2026, has amended the Reserve Bank of India (Commercial Banks – Resolution of Stressed Assets) Directions, 2025 by introducing a dedicated framework for resolution of borrower accounts impacted by natural calamities and other external disturbances affecting economic activity. The amendments prescribe eligibility conditions, timelines for invocation and implementation of resolution plans, and the role of State Level Bankers’ Committee (SLBC), Union Territory Level Bankers’ Committee (UTLBC) and District Consultative Committee (DCC) in assessing affected areas and recommending relief measures. The framework also permits banks to implement resolution plans suo moto, provide additional finance, and undertake restructuring measures for eligible standard accounts, while prescribing reporting obligations and board-approved policy requirements. The amendments shall come into force with effect from July 1, 2026.
Source: https://rbidocs.rbi.org.in/rdocs/notification/PDFs/NT440F61D7E5249B421D94E47FBE2EF02299.PDF
RBI introduces responsible business conduct measures for banking services in calamity affected areas
The RBI, vide Directions RBI/2026-27/46 dated April 29, 2026, has amended the Reserve Bank of India (Commercial Banks – Responsible Business Conduct) Directions, 2026 by introducing provisions relating to banking services in calamity affected areas. The amendments permit banks to operate affected branches from temporary premises, establish satellite offices, extension counters and mobile banking facilities, and undertake immediate restoration of ATM services with alternative arrangements to address the immediate cash requirements. The framework also enables opening of small accounts for displaced persons lacking identification documents and entitles banks to provide waiver or reduction of fees and charges for customers in affected areas for a period not exceeding one year. The amendments shall come into force with effect from July 1, 2026.
Source: https://rbidocs.rbi.org.in/rdocs/notification/PDFs/NT46BB3AE9CC38644D9A960F2017BA96D485.PDF
Judicial Curve
Tilak Shankar Mazumder v. The Office of R.B.I. Ombudsman
The Calcutta High Court set aside the orders passed by the RBI Ombudsman and Axis Bank rejecting the petitioner’s complaint relating to unauthorized transactions made using an add-on credit card during the petitioner’s daughter’s visit to Dublin, Ireland. The petitioner contended that the card had been stolen and fraudulent transactions amounting to 2,000 Euros were immediately reported to the bank within 24 hours, yet the bank rejected the complaint alleging negligence on the part of the cardholder.
The Court observed that the bank had failed to establish any negligence on the part of the petitioner or his daughter, as required under the RBI Circular dated July 6, 2017, governing customer liability in unauthorized electronic banking transactions. It noted that the bank had issued the credit card without PIN or OTP facilities and had failed to produce any material showing that liability for fraudulent transactions in such circumstances would automatically fall upon the customer. The Court further emphasized that under Clause 12 of the aforementioned RBI circular, the burden of proving customer liability in case of unauthorised electronic banking transactions shall lie on the bank.
Accordingly, the High Court held that the respondents had failed to deal with the complaint in accordance with the RBI guidelines and that the Ombudsman had closed the complaint without proper consideration. The impugned orders were consequently set aside, and Axis Bank was directed to refund the amount involved in the fraudulent transactions along with applicable charges.
Source: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/41265373/
Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA)
RBI prescribes reporting framework under Foreign Exchange Management (Guarantees) Regulations, 2026
The RBI, vide A.P. (DIR Series) Circular No. 01 dated April 1, 2026, has prescribed the reporting framework under the Foreign Exchange Management (Guarantees) Regulations, 2026. The circular introduces specified reporting forms for issuance, modification and invocation of guarantees and requires authorised dealer banks to submit such returns to the RBI through the Centralised Information Management System (CIMS) within thirty calendar days from the end of the relevant quarter. The framework also requires authorised dealer banks to generate a unique Guarantee Transaction Number for each reported guaranteed issuance and clarifies the computation mechanism for late submission fees in cases of delayed reporting. The directions have come into force with immediate effect.
Source:https://rbidocs.rbi.org.in/rdocs/notification/PDFs/APDIR027C34873255BF491DA45D5776BEE4C3D4.PDF
FEMA amends Master Direction on non-resident investment in debt instruments
The RBI, vide A.P. (DIR Series) Circular No. 06 dated April 10, 2026, has amended the Master Direction – Reserve Bank of India (Non-resident Investment in Debt Instruments) Directions, 2025 issued under the Foreign Exchange Management (Debt Instruments) Regulations, 2019. The amendment consolidates various directions issued over time relating to investments in debt instruments by Non-Resident Indians and the use of debt instruments acquired under FEMA 396 as collateral with recognised stock exchanges in India for exchange traded derivative transactions. The amendment also permits Foreign Portfolio Investors (FPIs) to use Government securities and non-convertible debentures/bonds issued by Indian companies, acquired under the Directions, as collateral for exchange-traded derivative transactions on recognised Indian stock exchanges. It also clarifies that all investments by non-residents in eligible debt instruments, including payment for acquisition and remittance or credit of sale and maturity proceeds, must be undertaken in accordance with the payment and repatriation mechanisms prescribed under the Foreign Exchange Management (Debt Instruments) Regulations, 2019.The updated Master Direction has been issued for compliance by Authorised Dealer Category-I banks and their constituents.
Source:https://rbidocs.rbi.org.in/rdocs/notification/PDFs/NT10BD72BEB5FFC146F8A132627547ECB89B.PDF
FEMA revises framework for foreign exchange derivative contracts involving related parties
The RBI, vide A.P. (DIR Series) Circular No. 07 dated April 20, 2026, has revised the framework under the Master Direction – Risk Management and Inter-Bank Dealings by restricting Authorised Dealers from undertaking foreign exchange derivative contracts involving INR with their related parties. The circular permits only cancellation and rollover of existing contracts and back-to-back transactions undertaken with non-related non-resident users in accordance with the applicable Master Direction. The term “related parties” shall have the meaning assigned under the applicable accounting standards, including Ind AS 24 and IAS 24. The directions have come into effect immediately.
Source:https://rbidocs.rbi.org.in/rdocs/notification/PDFs/NT141CBCF8D96C7D43FCB43D649F2653DF96.PDF
Judicial Curve
J. Sri Nisha vs The Special Director
The Hon’ble Supreme Court considered a batch of appeals arising from proceedings under FEMA concerning alleged violation of Section 4 of FEMA relating to acquisition of foreign securities without RBI approval. The appellants were proceeded against in relation to shares acquired in a Singapore-based company, leading to an interim seizure order under Section 37A of FEMA in 2020.
The Competent Authority, by order dated February 3, 2021, found no evidence of payment for the shares and held that no contravention was made out, thereby refusing to confirm the seizure. Despite this, adjudication proceedings continued, and the Madras High Court dismissed the appellants’ challenge to the show cause notice and subsequent proceedings. The Adjudicating Authority later imposed penalties and ordered confiscation, relying on the High Court’s observations, even though the appeal against the Competent Authority’s order was still pending.
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s orders and the final adjudication, holding that the statutory scheme under Section 37A of FEMA had been misapplied and that the pending appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, could materially impact the proceedings. The matter was remitted back to the stage of the show cause notice, with a direction to first decide the pending appeal within two months before continuing adjudication.
Source: https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2024/54899/54899_2024_2_1501_69599_Judgement_01-Apr-2026.pdf
Corporate
Judicial Curve
V Sundar vs Registrar of Companies
The present appeal concerned the scope and parameters governing restoration of a company under Section 252 of the Companies Act, 2013, particularly in cases where the Registrar of Companies has struck off the name of the company under Section 248. The core issue was whether the Hon’ble Tribunal was justified in refusing restoration on grounds such as alleged inactivity of the company and delay in filing the restoration application.
The appellant’s company, Thiruppur Sri Mahaganapathy Apparels Private Limited, had been struck off from the Register of Companies in 2012 due to alleged non-compliance and financial issues relating to its banking obligations with United Bank of India. The appellant sought restoration under Section 252, contending that the company remained operational and that revival would enable it to settle liabilities and continue business. However, the Hon’ble Tribunal rejected the application citing delay and failure to establish that the company was active or that restoration would serve a just purpose.
The Hon’ble Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, held that the rejection was not justified, observing that the material on record indicated possible misappreciation of the company’s status and that restoration provisions should be interpreted in favour of revival where feasible. It set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for reconsideration, directing the Hon’ble Tribunal to re-examine the application for restoration on merits in accordance with law and in light of the supporting documents.
Source: https://ibclaw.in/v-sundar-vs-registrar-of-companies-chennai-and-anr-nclat-chennai/
Arbitration
Judicial Curve
Nagreeka Indcon Products Pvt. Ltd. vs Cargocare Logistics (India) Pvt. Ltd.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court clarified that for a dispute resolution clause to constitute a binding arbitration agreement, it must demonstrate a clear determination and obligation to arbitrate, rather than a mere possibility The Court clarified that arbitration is fundamentally based on party autonomy and consent, and in the absence of unequivocal language such as “shall”, the clause cannot be construed as excluding the jurisdiction of civil courts.
The matter arose from a dispute relating to alleged wrongful delivery of cargo under a logistics contract, resulting in financial loss to the appellant. The appellant invoked the arbitration clause contained in the bills of lading, which provided that disputes “can be settled by arbitration”, and sought appointment of an arbitrator. However, the respondent resisted arbitration, contending that the clause was merely permissive and did not create a binding obligation to arbitrate. The Court emphasized that since consent is the source of an arbitral tribunal’s jurisdiction, imputing an obligation where none was intended would compromise party autonomy. The written word remains the foundation of legal obligation, and the Court will not compulsorily send parties to a forum they did not unequivocally choose.
Affirming the view of the High Court, the Supreme Court held that the expression “can” denotes discretion and not compulsion, and therefore the clause did not amount to a mandatory arbitration agreement under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. It accordingly held that recourse to arbitration was optional and upheld the dismissal of the application for appointment of an arbitrator.
Source: https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2023/23511/23511_2023_11_1501_70192_Judgement_17-Apr-2026.pdf
Home Care Retail Marts Pvt. Ltd. v. Haresh N. Sanghavi
The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the right to seek interim measures under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is available to any “party” to an arbitration agreement, including an unsuccessful party in arbitral proceedings. The Court held that the right to seek interim measures under Section 9 is available to any “party” to an arbitration agreement, as defined under Section 2(h), which simply means “a party to an arbitration agreement”. The Court clarified that this expression cannot be contextually modulated or narrowly construed to exclude an award-debtor at the post-award stage solely based on the outcome of the proceedings.
Furthermore, the Court ruled that interim protection under Section 9(1)(ii) is broader than merely securing the “fruits of the award”; it encompasses the “subject matter of arbitration” and the “amount in dispute”. The dispute arose from post-award proceedings where the unsuccessful party, while challenging the arbitral award under Section 34, sought interim protection under Section 9. The High Court had rejected the application relying on precedents that restricted Section 9 relief post-award to successful parties alone. This view was supported by a line of judgments from certain High Courts, while others had taken a contrary position permitting such applications even by unsuccessful parties.
Reversing the restrictive interpretation, the Supreme Court held that Section 9 operates independently of Section 36 and is not confined to award-holders. It ruled that even an unsuccessful party may invoke Section 9 at the post-award stage, albeit subject to a higher threshold and strict judicial scrutiny. The Hon’ble Supreme Court accordingly disapproved the restrictive view taken by several High Courts and affirmed that interim relief may be granted in rare and compelling cases to prevent irreparable prejudice and preserve the efficacy of challenge proceedings.
Source: https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2015/34891/34891_2015_14_1501_70498_Judgement_24-Apr-2026.pdf
Mackintosh Burn Limited vs Damodar Valley Corporation
The Hon’ble Calcutta High Court examined whether an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Act”) is maintainable against an order passed in proceedings arising from a conditional stay of an arbitral award under Section 36 of the Act. The primary issue was whether an application seeking withdrawal of cash security furnished in lieu of bank guarantee could be treated as one under Section 9 (and hence appealable) or under Section 36 of the Act (and hence not appealable).
The dispute arose out of arbitration proceedings relating to a power project contract, where the arbitral award had been challenged under Section 34 of the Act. The Trial Court granted conditional stay under Section 36(2) of the Act, directing deposit of 60% of the awarded amount in cash and securing the remaining 40% by bank guarantee. The appellant later sought withdrawal/modification of the cash deposit, which was dismissed by the Commercial Court. This dismissal was challenged in appeal.
The High Court held that the impugned order was in substance an exercise of jurisdiction under Section 36 and not under Section 9 of the Act. It drew a clear distinction between interim protection of subject matter under Section 9 of the Act and conditions governing stay of enforcement under Section 36 of the Act, holding that the two operate in separate spheres. The High Court also reasoned that an application seeking to modulate or vary the initial conditions of a stay (such as withdrawing cash security) is fundamentally an exercise of power under Section 36 of the Act. Consequently, it ruled that an order passed under Section 36 of the Act is not appealable under Section 37 of the Act read with Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, and accordingly dismissed the appeal as not maintainable.