India: Arbitration & Dispute Resolution

India’s tribunal system was conceived as a response to the limits of the ordinary judiciary: chronic arrears, increasing regulatory complexity and the need for specialised fora to adjudicate technical disputes. Over time, however, tribunals have ceased to be merely supplemental institutions and, in several sectors, have come to replace constitutional courts as the primary fora for administrative, corporate and economic adjudication.

The Constitution of India protects children as a distinct category requiring special protection, that the objective of juvenile justice legislation is meant to penal in rehabilitative and not penal in nature.

In KKH Finvest Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Ashiesh Shukla & Ors., the Supreme Court considered whether a shareholder who had not signed a Memorandum of Settlement containing an arbitration agreement could nevertheless be treated as a "veritable party" to that agreement and be referred to arbitration. The Court held that the absence of a signature was not determinative where the surrounding contractual framework and the non-signatory's performance demonstrated an intention to participate in, and be bound by, the composite transaction.

In JPC Infrastructure and Constructions Private Limited v. Alstom Transport India Limited1, the Delhi High Court considered whether an arbitral tribunal had committed patent illegality by refusing to rely upon a document originating from a separate arbitration.

In Aroha Labs Pte Ltd. v. Prem Dharmani1, the Karnataka High Court considered whether an Indian court could grant interim reliefs under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the "Arbitration Act") in respect of an arbitration governed by Singapore law and seated in Singapore.

In Prabhakar Yeshwant Masram & Anr. v. Sou Tula Namdeorao Jaipurkar & Anr., 2026 INSC 724, the Supreme Court clarified the threshold for initiating proceedings under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“CrPC”) for alleged false statements made in judicial proceedings. The Court held that a mere finding that a party has made a “wrong statement” is insufficient to initiate criminal proceedings. There must be material indicating a deliberate falsehood, and the Court must additionally be satisfied that initiating an inquiry is “expedient in the interests of justice.”

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana through its judgment dated 20.07.2026 in Ajay Gupta and Another v. Can Bank Factors Limited dismissed a Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking quashing of criminal proceedings under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 on the ground that insolvency proceedings had been initiated against the company under the IBC.

Contracts with Indian Oil Corporation Limited (“IOCL”) are commercially attractive because they offer scale, public-sector creditworthiness and strong credential value.

The judgment examines an important issue in commercial arbitration: whether an arbitral tribunal can restore a terminated dealership or franchise arrangement after holding the termination to be illegal.