TRIAGE LEGALAdvocates & Consultants
About Triage Our Approach Our Partners Firm Profile
Practice
Sectors
Articles & Commentary Legal Updates Guides Case Notes
Careers
Get In Touch
Legal Update

Recent Developments in Dispute Resolution

Recent developments before the Supreme Court of India have addressed the time limits governing arbitral proceedings, the distinction between the seat and venue of arbitration, the scope of proceedings for appointment of an arbitrator, and the use of settlement mechanisms in pending litigation.

Legal Update 7 min read

Key developments in India’s evolving dispute resolution landscape.

Time limits and extension of the arbitral mandate

C. Velusamy v. K. Indhera

Supreme Court of India 3 February 2026

  • The Supreme Court considered whether a court can extend the mandate of an arbitral tribunal under Section 29A after an award has already been rendered beyond the prescribed period.
  • The arbitration concerned disputes arising from three agreements to sell. The arbitral tribunal was constituted in 2022. The pleadings were completed on 20 August 2022. The parties subsequently extended the tribunal’s mandate by six months. The award was ultimately passed on 11 May 2024, after the extended mandate had expired on 20 February 2024.
  • The Court held that Section 29A permits the court to extend the mandate before or after expiry, that an application is maintainable even after an award has been rendered, and that an award after expiry is ineffective unless the court subsequently extends the mandate.
  • The Court must consider whether sufficient cause exists for extension and may impose appropriate terms and conditions.
  • The statutory framework does not provide for an automatic extension; the court is required to examine the circumstances before exercising its discretion.
  • The Court set aside the High Court’s view that an application for extension was not maintainable after the award had been delivered.

Seat and venue of arbitration

J&K Economic Reconstruction Agency v. Rash Builders India Private Limited

Supreme Court of India 15 April 2026

  • The Supreme Court considered the distinction between the juridical seat of arbitration and the venue where hearings are conducted.
  • The arbitration arose from infrastructure contracts in Jammu and Kashmir. The parties had agreed that Srinagar would be the seat and New Delhi the venue. Proceedings were conducted in New Delhi and the award was rendered there.
  • The Court held that the seat is the juridical home of the arbitration and determines the supervisory jurisdiction of the courts, while the venue is the geographical location for convenience.
  • Once a seat is designated, the courts at that seat have exclusive jurisdiction, and conducting hearings or delivering the award elsewhere does not change the seat.
  • A designated seat remains unchanged unless the parties expressly agree to alter it.
  • The Court held that Srinagar remained the seat and restored the proceedings, setting aside the High Court’s order.

Repeated applications for appointment of an arbitrator

Rajiv Gaddh v. Subodh Parkash

Supreme Court of India 1 April 2026

  • The Supreme Court considered whether a party could file a fresh application under Section 11 after abandoning earlier proceedings.
  • The parties had previously commenced arbitration concerning their joint business arrangements. After the claimant ceased participating, a fresh application was filed several years later following a subsequent Supreme Court judgment.
  • The Court held that the jurisdiction under Section 11 is primarily concerned with the existence of an arbitration agreement.
  • The principles in Order XXIII Rule 1 CPC can apply to Section 11 proceedings.
  • Where an earlier Section 11 proceeding has been abandoned or withdrawn without liberty, a subsequent application based on the same cause of action may be barred.
  • Abandonment cannot ordinarily be inferred merely from delay or non-participation; however, in this case, the claimant’s communication established abandonment.
  • The later judgment did not create a fresh cause of action.
  • The Court held that the subsequent Section 11 application was not maintainable and allowed the appeal.

Settlement of pending disputes

Supreme Court’s SAMADHAN SAMAROH initiative

Supreme Court of India 2026

  • The Supreme Court undertook a nationwide settlement initiative through SAMADHAN SAMAROH, commencing on 21 April 2026 and culminating in a Special Lok Adalat on 21, 22 and 23 August 2026.
  • The initiative was directed towards settlement of suitable pending matters. The identified categories included banking, civil law, consumer and RERA disputes, negotiable instruments, land acquisition, property tax, rent and eviction, service matters, direct and indirect taxation, and compensation and MACT matters.
  • Cases were identified across the Supreme Court and High Courts where there was scope for settlement, and additional matters could also be included.
  • The development forms part of the broader framework for mediation and consensual dispute resolution, including the Mediation Act, 2023 and the use of Lok Adalats and court-connected mediation mechanisms.
View all insights
Legal UpdateRecent Developments in Civil and Commercial Law6 min readLegal UpdateRecent Developments in Regulatory Law8 min readArticleWhen a Dispute Becomes a Legal Dispute8 min read