Tag
Arbitration
5 articles
Recent court decisions highlight the complexities and varied outcomes in arbitration proceedings across India. While PCM Resorts successfully secured the appointment of a sole arbitrator after the State of West Bengal’s inaction, both Imperial Fragnance and Desire Agro Resorts faced dismissal of their respective petitions, underscoring the importance of clear and binding arbitration clauses. The Bombay High Court’s dismissal of writs related to railway land acquisition further emphasizes the ongoing judicial scrutiny of arbitration processes, while BF Utilities’ adverse audit opinion, partly stemming from arbitration claims, serves as a reminder of the potential financial risks associated with unresolved disputes. These developments suggest that businesses should carefully draft arbitration agreements and proactively manage disputes to mitigate potential legal and financial repercussions.
Imperial Fragnance Execution Petitions Dismissed
The Calcutta High Court dismissed Imperial Fragnance & Flavours’ execution petitions GA‑COM/1/2026 and GA‑COM/2/2026, finding no transfer order needed.
The court noted inconsistency in GA‑COM/2/2026,
Desire Agro Resorts Arbitration Petition Dismissed
The Calcutta High Court dismissed Desire Agro Resorts' petition for appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act.
The court held Clause 9 of the 30‑Nov‑2009 MOU, containing
PCM Resorts Secures Arbitrator Appointment
PCM Resorts filed a Section 11 arbitration application after the State of West Bengal failed to appoint an arbitrator.
The Court held the contract’s dispute‑resolution clause created a binding arbitra
Bombay HC Dismisses Railway Land Writs
The Bombay High Court dismissed writ petitions 5601 and 5771 of 2026 seeking direction for pending arbitration on railway land acquisition compensation.
The court had earlier ordered petitioners to fi
BF Utilities FY26 Results with Adverse Audit Opinion
Board approved audited consolidated FY26 results showing revenue of ₹99,247.61 lakhs and net profit of ₹34,012.42 lakhs.
Statutory auditors issued adverse opinion citing four material uncertainties in