Landmark Judgements on Arbitration in India in 2025

The year 2025 witnessed several important developments in Indian arbitration jurisprudence. The Supreme Court of India and various High Courts clarified significant aspects of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, including the scope of judicial intervention, arbitrability of disputes, powers of arbitral tribunals, jurisdictional questions, and interpretation of arbitration agreements. These decisions collectively refine the procedural and substantive contours of arbitration law in India.

The following discussion analyses the major judgements delivered in 2025, explaining their factual background and legal reasoning in detail.

Supreme Court Judgements

Gayatri Balasamy v ISG Novasoft Technologies Ltd. (2025) 7 SCC 1

This decision of a five-Judge Bench addressed the extent of a court’s power while exercising jurisdiction under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The issue arose from conflicting precedents regarding whether courts could modify arbitral awards or were restricted only to setting them aside.

The majority in Gayatri Balasamy v ISG Novasoft Technologies Ltd. held that although Section 34 uses the expression “set aside”, courts possess a limited power to modify awards in narrowly defined circumstances. Such power can be exercised where the offending portion of the award is severable, or where clerical, computational, or patent errors are apparent. However, courts cannot re-evaluate evidence or rewrite the award on merits. The dissenting opinion cautioned that introducing a modification power risks expanding judicial interference beyond legislative intent.

Glencore International AG v Shree Ganesh Metals (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1815)

The Supreme Court examined whether an arbitration clause in an unsigned contract could bind parties based on correspondence and conduct. The dispute arose from a proposed fifth contract between parties who had previously executed four contracts containing arbitration clauses.

Although the fifth contract was not signed by one party, the Court noted that emails confirmed agreement on essential terms and performance had commenced, including lifting of goods and issuance of standby letters of credit. The Court held that arbitration agreements must be in writing but need not necessarily be signed. Acceptance can be inferred from conduct demonstrating assent to contractual terms, including the arbitration clause.

Hindustan Construction Company v Bihar Rajya Pul Nirman Nigam (2025 INSC 1365)

This case concerned whether a High Court could review and recall its own order appointing an arbitrator under Section 11 after arbitration proceedings had substantially progressed. The High Court had allowed a review petition and nullified the appointment after numerous sittings had already taken place.

The Supreme Court held that the scope of enquiry under Section 11 is confined to a prima facie determination of the existence of an arbitration agreement. Once an arbitrator is appointed and proceedings have advanced, recalling the order through review undermines arbitral autonomy and the principle of minimal judicial interference under Section 5. The Court emphasised finality and procedural discipline.

Disortho S.A.S v Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd. (2025 SCC OnLine SC 570)

The Supreme Court addressed the determination of the governing law of an arbitration agreement when the clause itself does not expressly specify it. The underlying contract was governed by Indian law, but the arbitration clause referred to arbitration under institutional rules in Bogota.

Relying on the three-stage test laid down in Sulamérica, the Court explained that in the absence of an express choice, courts must look for implied choice, and failing that, apply the closest and most real connection test. The Court analysed the distinction between lex contractus, lex arbitri and lex fori, and clarified how seat designation influences supervisory jurisdiction.

Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd v BCL Secure Premises Pvt. Ltd. (2025 INSC 1401)

This appeal questioned whether a subcontractor could invoke arbitration in the absence of privity of contract. The main contract existed between the appellant and another company, and the respondent claimed entitlement based on its alleged subcontracting role.

The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in appointing an arbitrator under Section 11 without establishing a prima facie contractual relationship. The Court reiterated that arbitration is founded on consent, and in the absence of documentary or contractual privity, a non-signatory cannot automatically be treated as a veritable party.

Tamil Nadu Cements Corporation Ltd v MSEFC (2025) 4 SCC 1

The Supreme Court considered whether writ petitions under Article 226 are maintainable against orders of the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council passed under Section 18 of the MSMED Act.

The Court clarified that although the MSMED Act provides a statutory remedy under Section 34 with a mandatory pre-deposit requirement, writ jurisdiction is not completely barred. Where the MSEFC acts without jurisdiction, violates principles of natural justice, or fails to follow mandatory conciliation-arbitration stages, writ jurisdiction can be invoked in exceptional circumstances.

ONGC v G & T Beckfield Drilling Services Pvt. Ltd. (2025 INSC 1066)

The dispute centred on whether a contractual clause excluding interest on delayed payments barred the arbitral tribunal from awarding pendente lite interest. The appellant argued that the tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction.

The Supreme Court held that the power to grant pendente lite interest can only be curtailed by an express or necessarily implied prohibition in the contract. A general clause excluding interest on delayed or disputed payments is insufficient unless it clearly bars all forms of interest. The Court upheld the tribunal’s award of interest as legally sustainable.

Arabian Exports Pvt. Ltd. v National Insurance Co. Ltd. (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1034)

The issue in this case was whether signing a “full and final settlement” discharge voucher prevents reference to arbitration. The insured alleged that the discharge was executed under financial distress and coercion.

The Supreme Court reiterated that at the Section 11 stage, the court’s role is confined to examining the existence of an arbitration agreement. Allegations of economic duress or coercion must be examined by the arbitral tribunal under Section 16. Therefore, execution of a discharge voucher does not automatically extinguish the arbitration clause.

K. Mangayarkarasi v N.J. Sundaresan (2025) 8 SCC 299

The dispute involved competing claims over trademark rights arising from alleged assignment deeds within a family business. The plaintiffs contended that fraud and forgery rendered the arbitration clause invalid.

The Supreme Court held that disputes relating to trademark rights arising from contractual assignments are rights in personam and therefore arbitrable. Allegations of fraud do not automatically render disputes non-arbitrable unless they involve public rights or serious criminal wrongdoing affecting society at large.

Lancor Holdings Ltd v Prem Kumar Menon (2025 INSC 1277)

This case dealt with an arbitral award delivered nearly four years after being reserved. The question was whether such delay rendered the award invalid.

The Supreme Court held that delay alone does not invalidate an award. However, an inordinate and unexplained delay that prejudices parties or renders the award unworkable may be a factor in determining whether the award is contrary to public policy or suffers from patent illegality. On facts, the award was set aside.

Bombay High Court Decisions

Om Swayambhu Siddhivinayak v Harichandra Dinkar Gaikwad (Arb. Appeal No. 21 of 2025)

The dispute arose from a Development Agreement containing an arbitration clause and a Supplemental Agreement without one. The trial court rejected a Section 8 application on the ground that the supplemental agreement lacked an arbitration clause.

The Bombay High Court held that the enquiry under Section 8 is limited to determining whether a valid arbitration agreement exists. Since the principal Development Agreement contained an arbitration clause and the supplemental agreement was ancillary, disputes arising from both were referable to arbitration. Fraud allegations were held arbitrable as they were inter se between parties.

Divya Enterprise v Capril Global Capital Ltd. (2025 SCC OnLine Bom 3783)

The issue concerned whether disputes relating to enforcement of mortgage rights were arbitrable. The defendants sought reference to arbitration under Section 8.

The High Court held that enforcement and redemption of mortgage involve rights in rem affecting third-party interests and require centralised adjudication by courts. Such disputes are non-arbitrable. Consequently, the Section 8 application was rejected.

Proteus Ventures LLP v Archilab Designs (2025)

The petition challenged an arbitral award under Section 34, particularly the imposition of joint and several liability on designated partners of an LLP.

The Bombay High Court upheld the award substantially but removed the portion imposing personal liability on designated partners. Relying on the principle of severability as recognised in Gayatri Balasamy, the Court held that partial setting aside is permissible where the offending portion is independent and does not affect the rest of the award.

Delhi High Court Decisions

Precitech Enclosures Systems Pvt Ltd. v Rudrapur Precision Industries (2025 SCC OnLine Del 1609)

The issue was whether the Delhi High Court had territorial jurisdiction under Section 9 where the agreement conferred exclusive jurisdiction on courts at Rudrapur.

The Court held that exclusive jurisdiction clauses must be respected. Subsequent email exchanges consenting to conduct arbitration in Delhi were treated as fixing venue, not altering the seat or jurisdiction clause. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed for lack of territorial jurisdiction.

Jaiprakash Associates Ltd v NHPC Ltd (2025) 1 HCC (Del) 39

The petitioner sought recommencement of arbitration after an earlier award had been set aside due to absence of evidence. The question was whether the matter should again be referred to arbitration under Section 11.

The Delhi High Court applied a prima facie scrutiny and observed that the arbitral tribunal had already found absence of evidence. Referring the matter again would amount to re-agitating identical issues and misusing the arbitral process. The Court therefore declined to appoint a fresh arbitrator.

Engineering Projects India Ltd v MSA Global LLC Oman (CS (OS) 243/2025)

The Delhi High Court granted an anti-arbitration injunction restraining continuation of a Singapore-seated ICC arbitration due to alleged non-disclosure of conflict of interest by a nominee arbitrator.

The Court reiterated the general non-interventionist approach but held that courts retain protective jurisdiction in exceptional circumstances. Where proceedings are oppressive, vexatious, or contrary to public policy, judicial intervention may be justified to prevent grave injustice.

Conclusion

The landmark arbitration judgements of 2025 reflect a mature and structured approach to arbitration law in India. The Supreme Court reinforced limited judicial intervention, clarified the treatment of non-signatories, refined the principles governing interest and delay, and strengthened the doctrine of consent. High Courts contributed by clarifying arbitrability boundaries, jurisdictional issues, and the scope of Section 34 review.

Collectively, these decisions deepen doctrinal clarity while preserving the efficiency and autonomy of the arbitral process.