Stewarts and Essex Court Chambers have secured another notable success in challenging an arbitral award before the English courts under section 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996.
The Stewarts team was led by Sherina Petit, Head of International Arbitration and Head of India Practice, working alongside Ricky Diwan KC of Essex Court Chambers. Muizz Drabu and Nick Ong, assisted with the challenge. Indus Powertech was represented in the underlying arbitration by Yoginder Handoo, Bani Dikshit and Uddhav Khanna.
In Indus Powertech v Echjay Industries Private Ltd [2026] EWHC 827 (Comm), judgment handed down on 10 April 2026, the Commercial Court held that the tribunal had failed to deal with two issues of causation within the meaning of section 68(2)(d) of the Arbitration Act 1996, causing substantial injustice. The court accordingly remitted those issues to the tribunal for determination, together with consequential questions of interest and costs.
In the underlying arbitration, a three‑member tribunal had found Indus to be in breach of non‑compete and non‑solicitation obligations by sourcing automotive components from an alternative supplier and had awarded damages for loss of profit on that basis.
Indus challenged the award under section 68(2)(d), contending that the tribunal had failed to address two essential issues of causation arising from the Echjay claim for alleged loss of profit said to result from a missed opportunity to manufacture certain components for automobile production.
During a detailed one-and-a-half‑day hearing, the Commercial Court examined the arbitral record and considered whether the points raised constituted ’issues’ and whether they had been addressed by the tribunal.
The court upheld both limbs of the challenge. It confirmed that the tribunal had failed to deal with the two causation issues. It remitted those matters for determination, together with any consequential issues relating to interest and costs.
This judgment represents another significant success for the joint team of Stewarts and Ricky Diwan KC in arbitration challenges, following their earlier victory in proceedings involving Aiteo Eastern E & P Company Limited.
Sherina Petit comments:
“Less than 5% of section 68 challenges are successful. This represents the second successful outcome achieved by the team under section 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996, underscoring our strength in arbitration, and arbitration‑related challenges before the English courts. It also reflects the continued expansion of our practice in this highly competitive space. We are particularly pleased to have repeated this success in collaboration with Ricky Diwan KC.”
Ricky Diwan KC adds:
“This comprehensive judgment brings together the principles governing section 68(2) challenges in a single decision and will provide valuable assistance to practitioners on the approach to identifying whether there has been a failure to deal with an issue.”
This case was also covered by GAR (see here).
