#arbitration proceedings

Sunil Walia v. Delhi International Arbitration Centre and Anr. | W.P.(C) 6019/2026 | Delhi High Court | Decided: May 4, 2026 | Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav

The Delhi High Court, in a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, dismissed a challenge to an interlocutory order passed by a sole arbitrator under the aegis of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC). The petitioner had sought to quash the arbitral proceedings on the ground that no fresh notice under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was issued after the original award was set aside by the Court in earlier proceedings.

Background

The disputes arose from a partnership firm, M/s Jason Enterprises, constituted under a deed dated December 29, 2004. Following disputes between the partners, arbitral proceedings were initiated before DIAC, which concluded in an award dated November 18, 2014. That award was set aside by the Delhi High Court vide order dated March 23, 2017 in Prakash Chand Goyal (HUF) v. Sunil Walia, with liberty to the parties to initiate fresh arbitration in accordance with law.

Pursuant to this, DIAC issued a communication dated January 4, 2018 appointing a sole arbitrator, and proceedings resumed under case reference No. DIAC/1664/04-17. The petitioner contended that respondent No. 2 never issued a fresh notice invoking arbitration under Section 21 before the second round of proceedings was initiated, rendering the entire arbitration void ab initio.

The petitioner also raised objections before the arbitrator under Section 16 of the Act. An earlier Section 16 application preferred on January 16, 2019 had already been dismissed vide order dated February 11, 2019, and was never challenged by either party. A fresh application was filed again, which the arbitrator dismissed vide the impugned order dated April 11, 2026, noting that the matter was at the stage of final arguments and the mandate for conclusion of proceedings was expiring on June 30, 2026.

Issue Before the Court

The primary question before the Court was whether non-issuance of a fresh notice under Section 21 of the Act, after the earlier award was set aside and liberty was granted for fresh arbitration, would be fatal to the validity of the subsequent arbitral proceedings.

Court's Analysis

The Court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Bhagheeratha Engineering Ltd. v. State of Kerala (2026 SCC OnLine SC 5), which reiterated that Section 21 of the Act is not a mandatory precondition for the commencement of arbitration. The purpose of Section 21, the Supreme Court had held, is only to determine the date of commencement of arbitral proceedings for the purpose of reckoning limitation. Failure to issue such a notice would not be fatal to a party if the claim is otherwise valid and the disputes are arbitrable. The Court also noted that the petitioner had been participating in the proceedings before the arbitral tribunal and had, prima facie, not raised any objection regarding the absence of a Section 21 notice at the inception of the proceedings.

On the question of maintainability of the writ petition itself, the Court referred to S.B.P. & Co. v. Patel Engineering Ltd. (2005) 8 SCC 618, wherein the Supreme Court held that parties must wait until an award is passed before challenging orders of an arbitral tribunal, unless a right of appeal exists under Section 37 of the Act. The Court further cited Surender Kumar Singhal v. Arun Kumar Bhalotia (2021 SCC OnLine Del 3708), which laid down that interference under Article 227 in arbitral proceedings is permissible only in exceptional circumstances where an order is completely perverse or patently lacking in inherent jurisdiction. The Court found no such exceptional circumstances in the present case.

Ruling

The writ petition was dismissed. The Court clarified that the petitioner remained at liberty to raise all pleas in proceedings under Section 34 of the Act, if occasion arose.

Ramesh Chand v. National Highways Authority of India and Anr. | Himachal Pradesh High Court | Decided on May 19, 2026

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has allowed applications filed under Section 29A(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for extension of time to conclude arbitration proceedings, holding that an application for such extension is maintainable even after the mandate of the arbitral tribunal has terminated by operation of law.

The Court extended the time for the learned Arbitrator to conclude the proceedings till July 20, 2026.

Background

The applicants' land was acquired by the National Highways Authority of India for widening and four-laning of National Highway No. 154 on the Pathankot-Mandi stretch. An award was passed by the competent authority on August 12, 2022. Dissatisfied with the award, the applicants approached the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi, who was exercising the powers of Arbitrator under the NHAI.

Arguments in the matter were heard and reserved on April 7, 2025. However, the Arbitrator who had reserved the matter was transferred without pronouncing the award. His successor, upon joining on August 4, 2025, noted that the award had not been pronounced and passed an order on August 5, 2025, closing the arbitral proceedings on the ground that the mandate had already stood terminated on June 13, 2025 by operation of law under Section 29A(4) of the Act. Liberty was granted to the parties to approach the competent court for extension of time.

The applicants thereafter filed the present applications before the High Court under Section 29A(5) of the Act seeking extension of the time to conclude the arbitration proceedings for a period of six months.

Contentions

The applicants contended that the matter was pursued by both parties sincerely and with due diligence but could not be concluded due to administrative reasons, specifically the transfer of the Arbitrator without pronouncement of the award. The respondents, while not disputing the factual position, opposed the grant of extension.

Court's Analysis

Contractors must keep in mind that the claimant carries the legal burden of proof claims, asserted have to be fortified up to certain required standards. The primary objective is to explain to the arbitral tribunal that all losses claimed are reasonably likely to have occurred.

To allow complicated assumptions, needing quantification in the reports generated, the counsel and experts interpret causation and liability to have been established.  

Regardless, construction claims remain laden with evidence, and it’s reasonable to expect a large amount of documentation to appear, as evidence in arbitration proceedings to the claims. Construction projects and claims provide comprehensive paperwork; from planning to procurement from variations and monitoring to completion and accounting to be studied by expert witnesses.

Hire the most well reputed, quantum expert to help out with construction claims, and your arbitrations are going to go in your favour!

Expert Witness’s Role in Providing Evidence in Arbitration Proceedings

In all cases, all documents that have been filed to support the calculations of claims should possess three features, and they should be sufficient, relevant and reliable. Spreadsheet summaries that are produced by the contractor’s staff may be incomplete and not fulfilling the criteria.  

To prevent this, the expert witness should consult contract to determine the forms of proofs required in disputes. The expert may determine whether the provided evidence in arbitration proceedings is sufficient or not and the arbitral tribunal ensures findings on issues pertaining to evidence.  

In some cases, for evidence that is sufficient, it’s important to disclose and identify all the documents regardless of the format they are in that could be expected have been prepared with the purpose of authorising or supporting legal or financial transaction. Or support legal or financial exchanges.

The Evidence In Arbitration Should Be:

Contemporaneous

Generated by the third party

A separately identified document

Relevant

Original

Translated suitably into the terminologies use by proceedings

The evidence provided should make sense and support any point made, data being used and the report provided by the expert by the expert. Contemporaneous evidence refers to the collection of data at the time of the activity and not in contemplation of any dispute.

The arbitral tribunal requires contractors to provide proof of head of claim by reference to the contemporaneous and relevant evidence in arbitration proceedings.  

In order to support the monetary value of each claim, contractors should be prepared to give out a detailed record of the costs that can be implemented to relevant tasks events or a period.  Level of details requested by the employer may appear to be extremely challenging to the contractor.

When responding to such requests, the first challenge encountered is the identification of the document or record that would be supporting the asserted amount, and to ensure that the request in the evidence is covered. But this is easier said than done.

Importance Of Project Documentation

A formal, comprehensive system that involves accounting, technician project management documentation is developed to ensure accurate execution of the project, which is according to the budget and time. The quantum expert, however, considers these documents and essential foundation methodologies and calculation can be built upon.

Once identified, the expert witness their legal team and the contractor needs to collect and organise necessary records and evidence in arbitration proceedings that support the amount that has been claimed. The organisation requires a document management system that included hard copies and soft copies. Numerous firms provide secure premises for their clients to store data.

Takeaway!

Contract Law; Finolex Cables Limited Vs. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. (MTNL) [Delhi High Court, 11-04-2017]

There was no loss suffered by MTNL on account of the failure of FCL to supply the cables. Merely because Clause 7.4 of the PO entitles MTNL to seek LD up to a maximum of 10% cannot justify the amount it sought to recover, namely, the entire sum of Rs.36,75,300, which according to the learned Arbitrator was approximately 10% of the contract value. (more…)

Waymo Targets Second Senior Executive in Uber Self-driving Technology Dispute

A pilot model Uber self-driving car is displayed at the Uber Advanced Technologies Center on September 13, 2016 in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Uber launched a groundbreaking driverless car service, stealing ahead of Detroit auto giants and Silicon Valley rivals with technology that could revolutionize transportation. (Photo credit: ANGELO MERENDINO/AFP/Getty Images) Alphabet’s self-driving car unit…

For the past two decades, investors have relied almost exclusively on arbitration to purport disputes regardless their stock brokers and pincer movement advisors. Brokerage firms altogether include an €arbitration clause€ in each customer agreement. Since the early 1980s, federal courts - led by the Omnipresent Court - squat on upheld the validity of those arbitration provisions, forcing investors in order to feat toward self-regulatory organizations and away from the courthouse. <\p>

As the arbitration process evolved, NASD emerged as the preeminent platform for dispute resolution. While the NYSE also has hosted arbitration proceedings, far more customers utilize the NASD process<\p>

The emergence of arbitration has certain to be both a blessing and a boon now securities customers. On the one hand, the process is recently fast and scaled-down costly than a lawsuit. On the other, some observers believe that NASD arbitrators tend to have a pro-industry bias. Some arbitrators outfox granted significant awards - periodically far in in excess of actual losses. Others deny claims in their entirety - and there is virtually no basis for appeal.<\p>

Arbitration procedures and proceedings have undergone numerous changes over the years; more mere tweaking and occasionally sea change - generally reflecting an effort to level the playing field. Recently, the SEC embraced a number in reference to changes in NASD's dispute resolution process, including efforts on make NASD's Code of Arbitration Procedure supernumerary €user sib". Investors ought to be please to learn that the newly-revised Code is calculated to indulge with a clearer roadmap for aggrieved customers.<\p>

The encore approved Code has been separated into three parts: the Living soul Code, the Industry Code, and the Mediation Code. Hopefully, this commitment prepare all parties to determine which rules apply to each dispute. In transit to make alter ego easier to find noteworthy rules, the Code is now organized to follow the next order touching a typical arbitration.<\p>

The new Code addresses the discovery process- the period before a hearing where parties verbal intercourse documents and information. Unfoldment has times without number been informal; parties have omitted discovery demands or evaded production. Under the actual Prescription, parties must produce (or formally object to producing) documents requested in the conception process. Arbitrators now decree be able to sanction parties who fail to correspond with waifs rules or orders from the panel. <\p>

The new rules also establish regular procedures for burnishing, responding to and ruling whereto motions adit NASD arbitrations. <\p>

Concerns over the arbitrator indication process also have coming in been addressed. The Teletypewriter modernistic creates a held in reserve roster of public arbitrators who are contingent to serve since chairpersons with-it investor disputes. Arbitrators cannot help but have a specific amount of breaking-in and experience to catch on to lateral pass as a chairperson. Minutely, in investor cases that require three arbitrators, parties will receive three lists anent potential arbitrators: a portion middleman list, a public chair-qualified arbitrator list and a non-public arbitrator list. All and sundry list settle coop cast names. Parties load strike up in order to four names without each list and rank the remaining candidates. In single-arbitrator cases (those involving claims of $50,000 or less), parties will choose excluding a list of eight public chair-qualified arbitrators. For certain industry cases which do not include claims next to gilded against an investor (such as disputes between firms), NASD has also established a non-public chairperson list.<\p>

The new Code is expected to become potent this spring (except for the Mollification bourdon, which already is in familiarize). To actualize the transition, NASD has adopted a new technological platform which, among dissociated things, generates lists of arbitrators going on a random, rather than rotational, basis.<\p>

Whole wide world three Codes are available to customers - as well as brokers - on NASD's website, http:\\www.nasd.com.<\p>