On 9 April 2026, the Supreme Court restated the Mobilox Innovations discipline: in a Section 9 IBC application the Adjudicating Authority enquires only into the existence of a plausible pre-existing dispute, not its merits; NCLAT cannot conduct a mini-trial to test the defence.
NCLAT Principal Bench (Bhushan CP, Mitra and Baroka) holds that where a Technical Guidance Agreement itself creates a minimum-royalty obligation, the absence of invoices does not defeat a Section 9 application; ₹63 lakh deposit ordered failing which CIRP admission follows.
Valkya Editorial··9 min
Landmark JudgmentNational Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi
NCLAT held on 9 February 2026 that a contested endorsement-fee instalment, plausibly linked to actual service-days, gives rise at most to a damages claim, not to operational debt under s.5(21) IBC; CIRP cannot be a recovery forum.
The May 2026 cycle in Indian arbitration law has produced three doctrinal threads running in parallel — the first substantial post-Gayatri Balasamy applications of the Section 34 limited-modification corridor (Bhupesh Bhayana, Gujarat Water Supply, Paramount Learning), the continuing stamping discipline post-In Re Interplay (Tarini Prasad Mohanty), and the Section 9 reset for the unsuccessful party at the post-award stage (Home Care Retail Marts). Read alongside the Section 12(5) appointment discipline (PTC Techno, Andhra Pradesh v. Dataevolve), the Cox & Kings group-of-companies extension (ASF Buildtech, Ocean View Properties), the limitation question (West Bengal v. B.B.M.), and the institutional developments (CIAC launch, IIAC empanelment suspension, pending 2024 Amendment Bill), the cycle discloses the operational architecture within which Indian arbitration practice now operates.
On 24 April 2026, the Supreme Court held that an unsuccessful party in arbitration can invoke Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 for interim relief at the post-award stage, pending Section 34 proceedings. The Court rejected the 'fruits of the award' doctrine that had restricted Section 9 to successful parties, reading Section 9's text — 'any party to an arbitration agreement' — to authorise the unsuccessful party to seek interim measures, subject to 'care, caution and circumspection'. The ruling resolves a long-standing High Court conflict and recalibrates the post-award practitioner architecture.
On 20 April 2021, a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court resolved a long-running circuit split and held that two Indian-incorporated parties may validly choose a foreign seat of arbitration. The resulting award is a foreign award enforceable under Part II of the 1996 Act, not a domestic award; and the Indian parties retain access to Section 9 interim relief through the proviso to Section 2(2). The judgment treats party autonomy as the dominant principle of Indian arbitration, even where the analytic invites attention to public-policy and contract-law objections.
On 20 January 2012, a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court — S.H. Kapadia C.J., K.S. Radhakrishnan J. and Swatanter Kumar J. — unanimously held that the transfer of a single share in a Cayman Islands holding company (CGP) between two non-residents did not give rise to capital gains taxable in India under Section 9(1)(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, even though the share's value was rooted in the Hutch–Vodafone Indian telecom chain; the look-at test was adopted, and the Revenue's USD 2.2 billion demand was quashed. Parliament responded with the Finance Act 2012 retrospective amendment to Section 9(1)(i); Vodafone then commenced a treaty arbitration under the India–Netherlands BIT and prevailed; the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act 2021 ultimately rolled back the retrospective amendment. A digest of the judgment, its statutory architecture, and the doctrinal arc that has followed.
Valkya Editorial··13 min
Landmark JudgmentNational Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi
After a judicial member of the NCLAT Chennai bench recused himself in August 2025 — disclosing an attempt to influence the order through a former High Court judge — the matter went to the Principal Bench under the Supreme Court's directions. On 23 March 2026, the Principal Bench under Chairperson Ashok Bhushan, J. set aside the insolvency proceedings and imposed ₹10 lakh costs on the operational creditor. A short but consequential disposition.
On 10 March 2026, a learned single judge of the Bombay High Court closed a gap that had quietly opened up in Indian arbitration practice: whether a foreign award-creditor who has filed an enforcement petition under Part II loses access to interim relief under Section 9. The judgment is short, the holding is precise, and the practitioner's takeaway is operational.