Best Taking an Arbitration Matter to the Supreme Court Lawyer

After a High Court decides an arbitration matter, the losing party often asks whether it can go to the Supreme Court. The Arbitration Act itself does not provide a further appeal: Section 37(3) says no second appeal lies from an order passed in appeal under Section 37, but it expressly preserves the right to appeal to the Supreme Court. That right is exercised through a special leave petition (SLP) under Article 136 of the Constitution.

This page is for parties who have lost in a High Court and are considering an SLP, and for parties whose High Court win is being taken to the Supreme Court. In short: the Supreme Court's power under Article 136 is discretionary; it usually admits arbitration SLPs only where there is a real question of law, a conflict between High Courts, or a clear departure from settled principles; the limit is 90 days from the judgment; and interim relief often comes with conditions of deposit.

An SLP is not a third look at the facts. It is worth filing when the High Court applied the law wrongly in a way that matters beyond the case, or caused a clear injustice.

Is this your situation?

How an SLP works

When the Supreme Court takes up arbitration cases

The Supreme Court receives a very large number of SLPs, and dismisses most at the admission stage, often in a single line. In arbitration matters, it has repeatedly stressed minimal judicial interference, and it is reluctant to entertain SLPs that simply ask it to re-examine whether an award was right.

The cases it does take up usually involve a question of law of general importance: the validity of unilateral appointment clauses (CORE, 2024), the power to modify awards (Gayatri Balasamy, 2025), the scope of Section 29A (Rohan Builders, 2024; Jagdeep Chowgule, 2026), the seat and court jurisdiction (J&K Economic Reconstruction Agency v Rash Builders, 2026), non-signatories (Cox & Kings, 2023), or limitation. It also intervenes where a High Court has clearly gone beyond its role, for example by re-appreciating evidence in a Section 37 appeal (Saisudhir Energy, 2026; Jan De Nul, 2026).

So before filing, ask whether the case raises such a question. If the High Court applied settled law to the facts and reached a view that is at least possible, an SLP is unlikely to succeed and will add cost and delay.

How we handle an arbitration SLP

Time and typical cost range

Our fees are agreed in writing at the start, stage by stage, and are not linked to the outcome. Senior counsel fees, where needed, are discussed and agreed in advance.

Documents needed

Arbitration orders commonly taken to the Supreme Court

Section 11 orders in the Supreme Court

Orders of a High Court Chief Justice or designate appointing, or refusing to appoint, an arbitrator under Section 11 are not appealable under the Act. The only route is an SLP. After In re Interplay (2023) and SBI General Insurance v Krish Spinning (2024), the referral court's role is limited to examining whether an arbitration agreement exists, and the Supreme Court has been reluctant to interfere with appointments unless there is a clear error, such as an appointment where no arbitration agreement exists, or a refusal to appoint based on a merits inquiry that the referral court should not have undertaken.

Because an arbitration usually continues once an arbitrator is appointed, an SLP against a Section 11 order should be filed quickly, with an application for stay of the arbitration if needed. Courts rarely stay arbitral proceedings, so be prepared for the arbitration to continue while the SLP is pending.

Interim relief and deposits

In SLPs against judgments that uphold money awards, the petitioner usually asks the Court to stay the execution of the award. The Supreme Court commonly grants such stays only on condition that the awarded amount, or a substantial part of it, is deposited, and it often allows the award holder to withdraw the deposit on furnishing security, much as High Courts do under Section 36. Where an amount is already deposited in the High Court, the Court may direct that it remain there or be transferred.

For the respondent award holder, the first hearing is the moment to ask for these conditions. If the SLP is ultimately dismissed, the deposit, with any interest earned, is released to the award holder.

Laws that apply

How we work

We are a litigation and advisory practice led by Advocate BK Singh, with offices in Dwarka (New Delhi) and Vaishali (Ghaziabad), working with advocates-on-record in the Supreme Court. This is what you can expect:

• Frank assessment: a written view before any SLP is filed.
• Questions of law: petitions framed around issues the Court actually takes up.
• Deadline control: the 90-day limit and certified copies managed from day one.
• Interim strategy: deposits and security planned in advance.
• Written fee terms: agreed stage by stage, never linked to the outcome.

Mistakes with arbitration SLPs

Framing the questions of law

An SLP must set out the questions of law that the case raises. In arbitration matters, the strongest questions are specific and tied to a provision of the Act: for example, whether a court hearing a Section 34 petition can re-appreciate evidence on a particular kind of finding; whether a Section 29A application lies before a particular court; whether an arbitration agreement binds a non-signatory in a group of companies on given facts; or whether a contractual bar on interest extends to post-award interest.

Vague questions, such as "whether the High Court erred in upholding the award", tell the Court nothing and invite dismissal. We draft three to five precise questions, each supported by the grounds and the authorities that show why the High Court's approach departs from settled law or why the point needs the Court's decision.

The list of dates and synopsis

At the admission stage, the judges often read only the synopsis and list of dates before hearing counsel for a few minutes. These pages must tell the story of the case clearly and briefly: the contract, the dispute, the arbitration, the award, the Section 34 and Section 37 decisions, and the error now complained of. Each date should be supported by a document in the paper book.

A clear synopsis that identifies, in its first paragraph, the legal issue and why it matters is far more effective than a long narrative. We aim to keep the synopsis to a few pages and the list of dates to the events that actually matter.

Delay in filing

Delay in filing an SLP can be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, but the Supreme Court expects a convincing explanation, especially in commercial matters where the Arbitration Act and the Commercial Courts Act stress speed. In Borse Brothers (2021), the Court said that in commercial arbitration appeals, condonation should be the exception, and similar reasoning influences how it views delay in SLPs in such matters. Government bodies are not given special treatment.

File within 90 days wherever possible. If delay is unavoidable, explain each period with documents, and file the condonation application with the petition.

Responding to an SLP against you

If you won in the High Court and expect the other side to go to the Supreme Court, file a caveat in the Supreme Court early. A caveat ensures that you are notified and heard before any interim order is passed. When the SLP is listed, appear at the admission hearing, even if notice has not been issued, to oppose an unconditional stay and to ask for deposit conditions.

If notice is issued, file a concise counter-affidavit that answers the questions of law, shows that the High Court applied settled principles, and points out any delay or lack of good faith. Emphasise the narrow scope of court interference in arbitration and the finality of awards.

Settlement at the Supreme Court stage

The Supreme Court frequently refers parties in commercial and arbitration matters to mediation, including through its own mediation centre. By this stage, the dispute may have been running for many years, and both sides have a clear view of the risks. A settlement can be recorded and the SLP disposed of in terms of it, with directions on any deposit. Settlements here often cover related disputes between the same parties, which brings an end to the whole relationship's litigation.

Article 32 and other routes

Parties sometimes ask whether they can approach the Supreme Court directly under Article 32 in an arbitration matter. Article 32 is for enforcing fundamental rights, and commercial disputes between private parties rarely engage it. Similarly, review petitions against Supreme Court decisions are limited to errors apparent on the record and are usually decided in chambers. Curative petitions are rarer still. For practical purposes, the SLP is the only route to the Supreme Court in an arbitration matter, and it should be prepared with care.

Costs of going to the Supreme Court

Supreme Court litigation costs more than High Court litigation. The petition must be filed by an advocate-on-record, and many arbitration SLPs are argued by senior counsel, whose fees are charged per appearance. The paper book must be prepared in the Court's format, with translations where needed. If the matter is admitted, it can be listed many times before a final hearing.

Against this, weigh the amount at stake, the post-award interest that keeps running, and the probable deposit condition. For an award of a few lakh rupees, an SLP rarely makes economic sense unless the point of law affects many similar contracts. For larger awards, or where a question of law affects the business's standard contracts, it may be worth pursuing. We give a written estimate of the total cost, including senior counsel if needed, before filing.

Important arbitration decisions from SLPs

Many of the leading arbitration decisions of recent years began as SLPs against High Court orders: the rule against unilateral appointment of arbitrators, the limited power to modify awards, the scope of review at the Section 11 stage, the binding of non-signatories, the treatment of stamp duty in arbitration agreements, and the court that decides Section 29A applications. These cases show that the Court will engage closely with arbitration law where a real question arises.

They also show what the Court expects: that the question be clearly framed, that the High Court's reasoning be shown to conflict with principle, and that the facts be presented accurately. An SLP that is properly prepared stands a better chance of being heard, even if the final result cannot be predicted.