- in India
- with readers working within the Law Firm industries
- within Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration, Energy and Natural Resources and Intellectual Property topic(s)
We are delighted to share this month's AKP Dispute Resolution Monthly Digest. Please feel free to write to us with your feedback at info@akandpartners.in.
1. Arbitration & Mediation
1.1. Real Estate
1.1.1. Supreme Court Curbs Belated Arbitration Jurisdiction Challenges
In a dispute arising from a 2001 consultancy agreement between the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and M/s R.V. Anderson Associates Limited for upgrading Mumbai's sewerage operations under a World Bank–funded project, payment disagreements led the consultant to commence arbitration in 2005. The arbitration clause required the two nominee arbitrators to select a presiding arbitrator within 30 days, failing which the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes Secretary General would step in; several presiding arbitrators were appointed sequentially, and the Corporation participated fully, including at a preliminary meeting in January 2009, without objecting to the tribunal's constitution. The Corporation first raised a jurisdictional objection only in February 2009, claiming the nominee arbitrators had exceeded their authority by appointing the presiding arbitrator after the 30‑day period, but the tribunal rejected this and ultimately passed an award in favour of the consultant (the quantum of the claim/award is not specified in the facts provided). The Hon'ble Supreme Court, dismissing the Corporation's challenge to the award (after earlier failures under Sections 34 and 37 before the Hon'ble Bombay High Court), held that a party which has actively participated in the arbitration without invoking Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act at the appropriate stage cannot later assail the arbitral tribunal's jurisdiction merely because the outcome is unfavourable; the ratio decidendi is that parties cannot keep jurisdictional objections in reserve to be used post‑award, and their conduct and acquiescence to the tribunal's constitution and procedure can estop belated, technical jurisdictional challenges, in order to safeguard the efficiency and finality of arbitration.
1.2. Logistics and Warehousing
1.2.1. Delhi High Court Restores Arbitral Award in Warehouse Fire Dispute; Reaffirms Limits of Section 34 Review
The Hon'ble Delhi High Court, in the case of Central Warehousing Corporation v. Indo Arya Logistics A Unit Of Indo Arya Central Transport Ltd, restored an arbitral award of Rs 91,62,992 to Appellant against Respondent in a warehouse fire dispute, ruling that the Commercial Court exceeded its powers under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act by re-appreciating evidence on negligence. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court also held that the arbitrator's finding of negligence by Indo Arya was plausible, even without a known fire cause, invoking res ipsa loquitur: the accident itself evidenced negligence. Under December 20, 2006, agreement, Indo Arya operated three Dadri godowns for Central Warehousing. On December 18, 2008, fire destroyed one, including Pantaloon Retail goods. Central Warehousing rebuilt via tender and claimed Rs 69.8 lakh reconstruction costs plus storage charges; the arbitrator awarded Rs 69,80,229 and Rs 21,82,763 respectively on September 17, 2018. Indo Arya challenged under Section 34 and the Commercial Court set aside the award in February 2024 for unproven negligence. Central Warehousing appealed under Section 37, arguing ignored operational control clauses holding Indo Arya responsible for maintenance and electrics, despite joint locking. The Hon'ble High Court faulted the lower court for appellate overreach, noting it wrongly questioned unraised safety measures and misapplied Evidence Act burdens. The Arbitrator interpreted holistic contract terms granting Indo Arya exclusive control, with Central Warehousing limited to inspections. Courts cannot interfere unless awards violate public policy or are patently illegal; the appeal succeeded as the view was sustainable.
1.3. Trading and Commercial
1.3.1. Commercial Courts Act Demands Diligence: Delhi High Court Dismisses Time‑Barred Appeal after 1,000 Days
The Delhi High Court in the case titled as Tanishq Agencies v. M/S Ventura International Pvt Ltd., recently refused to condone a 1,000-day delay in filing a commercial appeal by Tanishq Agencies against Ventura International Pvt Ltd, emphasizing the Commercial Courts Act's mandate for strict timelines to ensure speedy dispute resolution. The Hon'ble Court cited the Act's objective decided in Government of Maharashtra v. Borse Brothers Engineers, holding that sufficient cause requires proven diligence, which vague COVID-related counsel issues and late awareness during 2025 execution failed to show. The appeal challenged a December 21, 2022 ex-parte decree in Ventura's recovery suit over buyer-seller payments. Despite denying condonation, the bench addressed merits, ruling the suit timely under Article 113 of the Limitation Act (residual clause) from the last payment on May 17, 2016, as buyer-seller dealings do not qualify as mutual accounts under Article 1; the May 23, 2019, filing fell within limits only by excluding pre-institution mediation under Section 12A. Tanishq claimed non-service of mediation notices, but the court upheld the District Legal Services Authority's non-starter report as a conclusive statutory record of service and non-appearance, rejecting fraud allegations without evidence.
2. White Collar, PMLA & Enforcement
2.1. Online Investments
2.1.1. Supreme Court affirms Custodial Interrogation Warranted in Complex Money Laundering Offences: Supreme Court
The Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 2894/2026 titled as Bhaskar Yadav v. Directorate Of Enforcement Court, against the Delhi High Court's refusal of anticipatory bail in a massive Rs. 640 crore money laundering case under PMLA, linked to cyber fraud via fake investment and part-time job schemes originating from two CBI FIRs in 2023-2024. Yadav and co-accused Ashok Kumar Sharma allegedly ran a syndicate from Delhi's Bijwasan, luring victims online with high returns, paying initial payouts to build trust, then siphoning funds through thousands of "mule" accounts layered via 937 linked bank accounts tied to common mobiles/emails. Funds of over Rs. 65 crore via Yadav were uploaded to UAE's PYYPL platform using Indian debit cards for Dubai withdrawals and crypto conversion. On February 2, Delhi HC rejected bail, stressing PMLA's strict twin conditions mentioned under Section 45 of no reasonable belief of innocence and flight risk, citing a "vast intricate mesh" of layering, cross-border flows, wiped devices, assaults on officials, and complainant influence attempts; custodial interrogation needed to probe bank involvement. The Hon'ble Supreme Court found no grounds to interfere but granted Yadav 10 days to surrender, clarifying HC observations won't bind regular bail proceedings, keeping options open for future applications.
3. Enforcement Directorate
3.1. Real Estate
3.1.1. Supreme Court holds appeal under Section 26 Creates a 'Deemed Embargo' on Confiscation Proceedings
On 06.06.2026, the Supreme Court in SLP (Crl.) No. 9216 of 2023 titled as M/S. Nav Nirman Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, issued a landmark ruling in a money laundering case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), holding that confiscation proceedings under Section 8(7) cannot proceed if an appeal against the confirmation of an attachment order under Section 8(3) remains pending before the Appellate Tribunal. The Hon'ble Court explained that challenging the attachment via Section 26 triggers a "deemed embargo," functioning as an automatic stay that bars the Special Court from adjudicating confiscation until the appeal attains finality, thereby preserving the aggrieved party's statutory right to exhaust appellate remedies. The case originated when the Enforcement Directorate provisionally attached properties under Section 5(1), which the Adjudicating Authority later confirmed under Section 8(3). Despite the entity's pending appeal, the Special Court permitted confiscation under Section 8(7) due to delays in the criminal trial, a decision upheld by the High Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court set aside both orders, deeming the Special Court's action impermissible as it encroached on the Tribunal's jurisdiction and rendered the appeal infructuous. The bench further clarified that Sections 8(7) and 8(8) operate independently, activating only under specific conditions, with the phrase "material before it" in Section 8(7) limited to new evidence not previously considered by the Adjudicating Authority. This ensures no premature property forfeiture during ongoing appeals, balancing enforcement rigor with procedural fairness in PMLA cases.
4. Insolvency and Bankruptcy Law
4.1. Banking & Finance
4.1.1 Supreme Court issues directions to Committee of Creditors to safeguard homebuyer's interests in builder insolvency cases
The Supreme Court cautioned against expanding the scope of judicial review in insolvency proceedings, observing that unsuccessful resolution applicants are increasingly attempting to challenge commercial decisions of the Committee of Creditors ("CoC") by alleging procedural irregularities. The case arose from insolvency proceedings relating to SKS Power Generation (Chhattisgarh) Ltd., where unsuccessful bidders sought to reopen the resolution process by challenging the CoC's decision approving a competing resolution plan. The appellants argued that certain procedural irregularities during the bidding process warranted judicial interference. Rejecting these challenges, the Supreme Court emphasised that the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 ("IBC") establishes a creditor-driven resolution framework, under which the commercial wisdom of the CoC is entitled to substantial deference. The Court observed that allowing unsuccessful bidders to repeatedly challenge CoC decisions would convert insolvency proceedings into prolonged adversarial litigation, defeating the Code's objective of a time-bound resolution process. The Court further clarified that judicial review in insolvency matters is confined to examining whether the resolution process complies with statutory requirements and does not extend to reassessing the commercial merits of CoC decisions.
5. Consumer Law/ Real Estate
5.1. Real Estate
5.1.1 Supreme Court holds homebuyers who elected remedy under RERA cannot subsequently pursue consumer forum proceedings
The Supreme Court of India has clarified that once homebuyers elect to pursue remedies under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA), they cannot subsequently initiate proceedings before consumer forums seeking identical relief. The dispute arose when a group of homebuyers who had earlier invoked the jurisdiction of the RERA authority later approached the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) seeking similar reliefs against the developer. The NCDRC entertained the complaint, prompting the developer to challenge the maintainability of the proceedings. Setting aside the NCDRC's order, the Supreme Court held that although RERA and the Consumer Protection Act provide parallel remedies to homebuyers, the doctrine of election of remedies applies once a litigant chooses a specific statutory forum. The Court observed that allowing parties to pursue multiple forums sequentially for the same relief would lead to forum shopping and undermine procedural discipline in real estate disputes. The ruling clarifies that while homebuyers are free to choose either RERA or consumer fora as their remedy, they cannot pursue both sequentially for identical claims arising out of the same cause of action
5.2. Automobile Industry
5.2.1. National Consumer Commission affirms Relief to the Consumer for a Defective Vehicle, Limits Revisional Interference
The National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC) has reiterated that manufacturers cannot escape liability where a consumer establishes persistent defects in a vehicle and the findings of the lower consumer forum are based on proper appreciation of evidence. The ruling came in Vinay Kumar Mishra vs Marut Suzuki India Limited & Anr. Revision Petition No. 403 of 2022 decided on 12th January 2026. The dispute arose after the complainant purchased a Maruti Suzuki Celerio in 2014, alleging that the vehicle suffered from inherent manufacturing defects, particularly relating to the braking system. Despite repeated complaints and assurances by the manufacturer and dealer to rectify the issue, the defects allegedly persisted. The District Commission vide order dated 16th July 2019 allowed the complaint and directed the replacement of the defective vehicle with a similar model. However, the manufacturer challenged the order before the State Commission, Rajasthan, which partly modified the relief. The matter hereafter brought before the NCDRC reiterated that its revisional jurisdiction under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is limited and can be exercised only in cases of jurisdictional errors, material irregularity, or perversity in the findings of the lower forum. It held that revisional power cannot be used to re-appreciate evidence or substitute concurrent factual findings unless they are manifestly erroneous.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
