Worldwide: Arbitration & Dispute Resolution

The Supreme Court’s decision in Bhadra International (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Airports Authority of India, 2026 INSC 6 finally settles the long-standing debate around unilateral appointment of arbitrators. For practitioners, the judgment is significant not because it introduces new law, but because it decisively closes the escape routes that were frequently relied upon to defend such appointments. The Court makes it clear that neutrality in arbitration begins at the stage of appointment, and not after proceedings have commenced.

The Supreme Court’s decision in M/s Bhagheeratha Engineering Ltd. v. State of Kerala (2026 INSC 4, decided on 5 January 2026) represents a decisive reaffirmation of pro-arbitration principles under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

The Supreme Court has drawn a clear and decisive line on a question that has repeatedly troubled Section 9 litigation: when does arbitration truly begin? In a firm reaffirmation of statutory principle, the Court in Regenta Hotels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Hotel Grand Centre Point & Ors. (2026 INSC 32) held that arbitral proceedings commence upon the Respondent’s receipt of a notice invoking arbitration under Section 21 of the Act.

Technology no longer merely stores information; it increasingly controls the physical world. The law, however, still regulates it as if it were confined to a database.

The judgment clarifies that party autonomy exercised through institutional rules cannot dilute a statutory confidentiality obligation enacted by Parliament.

When a challenge to an arbitral award is filed within limitation but suffers from fundamental defects, can such defects be cured through re-filing after the limitation period expires? This analysis examines the judicial evolution of the non-est filing doctrine under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, exploring how courts distinguish between curable procedural irregularities and fatal substantive defects that render a filing legally non-existent.

The Supreme Court of India has delivered a landmark judgment reinforcing trade dress protection in the automotive battery industry, clarifying that exclusive rights extend to the overall commercial impression created by distinctive packaging elements rather than individual colors in isolation. This case examines how courts balance consumer protection against deceptive similarity with the preservation of fair competition, while addressing the critical question of when a combination of visual elements acquire

The Supreme Court of India and High Courts deliver significant rulings on arbitration, criminal procedure, land acquisition, and GST matters. Key decisions address incorporation of arbitration clauses by reference, mandatory pre-cognizance hearings under BNSS, execution of specific performance decrees, limitation periods for challenging arbitral awards, and GST applicability on leasehold rights assignments.

An Arbitrator’s authority to decide a dispute rests on something more fundamental than the arbitration agreement that appoints them; it rests on the parties’ confidence in the arbitrator’s independence, impartiality and transparency. Section 12 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“the Act”) gives statutory expression to that principle by requiring an arbitrator to disclose.