News Bulletin Details
- Home
- News Bulletin Details
Oct 19 2026
IBC Laws Today | Commercial & Dispute Resolution
Overview
The 19 October 2026 edition of IBC Laws Today—Commercial & Dispute Resolution presents recent judgments and legal developments involving arbitration, commercial disputes, insolvency, debt recovery and real-estate regulation. The edition includes decisions from the Supreme Court of India and the High Courts of Karnataka, Bombay, Calcutta, Madras and Delhi.
Key issues include contractual restrictions on pre-award interest, proof required for price-adjustment claims, statutory arbitration involving multi-State cooperative societies, execution proceedings, judicial interference with arbitral orders, patent illegality, withdrawal of RERA complaints and the treatment of claims during corporate insolvency resolution proceedings.
Details
Newsletter Information
Newsletter: IBC Laws Today—Commercial & Dispute Resolution
Edition date: 19 October 2026
Publisher: IBC Laws
Primary coverage: Arbitration, commercial litigation, insolvency, debt recovery and real-estate regulation.
Format: Case summaries, weekly legal digests and daily case-law updates.
Supreme Court—Contractual Bar on Pre-Award Interest
Case: Sharma Enterprises v. National Building Construction Corporation
Court: Supreme Court of India
Citation: (2026) ibclaw.in 671 SC
Interest under arbitration law: The tribunal’s authority under Section 31(7)(a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to award pre-reference and pendente lite interest remains subject to the parties’ agreement.
Contractual restriction: A sufficiently comprehensive contractual clause can exclude the tribunal’s power to grant interest for the period preceding the award.
Interpretation of Clause 26: The expression “or otherwise” was treated as a broad, residuary bar covering interest on balance payments, deposits and delayed monthly or final payments.
Outcome: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the restriction on pre-reference and pendente lite interest, while leaving the substantive award and post-award interest undisturbed.
Karnataka High Court—Proof of Price Adjustment
Case: BSR Infratech India Ltd. v. State Project Director, Rashtriya Madhyamika Shiksha Abhiyan and Another
Court: Karnataka High Court
Citation: (2026) ibclaw.in 5879 HC
Price-adjustment claim: A claim under Clause 40 of the contract cannot succeed unless its amount is established through calculations and supporting material based on the Contract Data formulae.
Judicial review: In proceedings under Sections 34 and 37, a court need not interfere when a claim has been rejected for insufficient evidence, because proof of entitlement alone does not establish the amount payable.
Bombay High Court—Statutory Arbitration and Personal-Guarantor Insolvency
Case: Universal Textile Waterproof Co. (India) v. Central Registrar of Co-Operative Societies and Others
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: (2026) ibclaw.in 6044 HC
Statutory reference: Section 84 of the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act creates a statutory arbitration mechanism for disputes connected with the business of a multi-State cooperative society.
Notice requirement: Absence of a notice under Section 21 of the Arbitration Act does not invalidate such statutory proceedings where limitation is governed by Section 85 of the MSCS Act.
IBC moratorium: Following the insertion of Section 96(4), Section 96 does not apply to an insolvency-resolution application against a personal guarantor to a corporate debtor, including applications already pending.
Arbitrator’s independence: An arbitrator appointed by the Central Registrar under Section 84 is not treated as a unilateral appointee of the disputing bank, and multiple assignments alone do not prove bias or disqualification.
Bombay High Court—Execution and FEMA Objections
Case: Vistra ITCL (India) Ltd. and Another v. Sanjay Dattatreya Kakade and Others
Citation: (2026) ibclaw.in 6038 HC
Repeated objections: Judgment debtors could not re-agitate alleged FEMA violations after withdrawing earlier challenges through consent terms and after the same contention had been rejected in Special Leave Petition proceedings.
Auction proceedings: Where the judgment debtors had agreed not to obstruct execution and acknowledged their inability to pay, the Court Receiver could proceed according to law and conduct a third-round auction.
Calcutta High Court—Limited Supervisory Jurisdiction
Case: Tribeni Construction Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation
Citation: (2026) ibclaw.in 5806 HC
Article 227: Supervisory jurisdiction against an interlocutory order in a Section 37 appeal is available only within a very narrow jurisdictional scope.
Interference threshold: A petition is not maintainable where no jurisdictional error or patent absence of jurisdiction is demonstrated.
Joint measurement: Measurement directed under Section 17 may cover completed and incomplete work performed up to termination, but determining the quantity and value of unexecuted work remains a matter for arbitral adjudication.
Madras High Court—Composite Arbitration Agreement and Defective Goods
Case: GMMCO Ltd. v. Supreme Industries Ltd.
Citation: (2026) ibclaw.in 5929 HC
Arbitration agreement: Under Section 7(4)(b), an agreement to arbitrate may be established through a collection of contractual communications demonstrating offer and acceptance.
Limitation: Limitation in arbitration is a mixed question of law and fact, and ordinarily does not justify interference unless patent illegality is established.
Refund for defective goods: An award granting a complete refund without considering return of the goods, mitigation of loss or depreciation was held to be patently illegal and liable to be remitted.
Delhi High Court—Patent Illegality and Project Cost
Case: Kurukshetra Expressway Pvt. Ltd. v. National Highways Authority of India
Citation: (2026) ibclaw.in 5845 HC
Rewriting the contract: An award may be set aside for patent illegality under Section 34(2A) when the tribunal rewrites, rather than interprets, the parties’ agreement.
Project-cost restriction: A unilateral disaggregation letter could not enlarge the contractually capped Total Project Cost for calculating termination payments.
Harmonious interpretation: The Total Project Cost definition and the termination-payment formula had to be read together, with Debt Due and Adjusted Equity restricted to the contractually defined amount.
Section 37 review: An appellate court examines whether the Section 34 court remained within the statutory grounds of review and cannot substitute another merely reasonable contractual interpretation.
Weekly Case-Law Digests
RERA Bulletin: Weekly case-law digest covering decisions reported between 12 and 17 October 2026.
Arbitration and Dispute Resolution Bulletin: Weekly digest of arbitration and dispute-resolution cases reported between 12 and 17 October 2026.
Insolvency Bulletin: Weekly insolvency case-law digest covering the period from 12 to 17 October 2026.
Additional Case Highlights
Withdrawal of RERA complaint: The Uttar Pradesh REAT set aside a refund order because the Regulatory Authority had not considered the allottee’s pending request to withdraw the complaint and instead pursue possession with interest for delay.
Legal-heir impleadment: DRAT Delhi held that the Limitation Act did not justify rejecting an application to implead the remaining legal heirs of a deceased defendant merely because the request was filed after 12 years.
Mastana Foods resolution plan: NCLAT upheld the resolution plan and found no illegality in seeking clarification concerning excise-dues treatment or in refusing an unsolicited higher offer after completion of the electronic-bidding process.
Licence dues as CIRP costs: NCLAT upheld the direction that Ravi Dhiman’s unpaid licence-related dues be considered under the IBC, noting that the resolution professional had never possessed the Noida premises.
Pre-institution mediation: The Madras High Court held that a request for exemption from mediation under Section 12A must be evaluated from the plaintiff’s perspective when urgent interim relief is claimed.
Interim protection: While setting aside the Commercial Court’s rejection, the Madras High Court directed the parties to mediation and protected possession during the process.
Gayatri Hospitality CIRP: The NCLT New Delhi Bench admitted Gayatri Hospitality and Realcon Ltd. into the corporate insolvency resolution process after finding that the statutory threshold under Section 7 had been satisfied.
Homebuyer objections: The NCLT rejected objections involving RERA refund claimants, cancelled allotments and possession offers made without occupancy certificates.
Daily updates: The newsletter also refers readers to the IBC Laws Today digest of cases reported on 16 October 2026.
Access and Further Information
Mobile access: Readers may access judgments, case-law summaries and legal updates through the IBC Laws mobile application.
Website: www.ibclaw.in
Contact: info@ibclaw.in
Further information: Complete judgments, case summaries and weekly digests may be accessed through the links included in the original IBC Laws communication.
Disclaimer: The information provided in this News Bulletin is for informational purposes only. The Learning Centre does not facilitate or provide recordings, additional data, access, or any other related information concerning the events/resources listed.
