This compilation indexes twelve High Court rulings pronounced between July and September 2026 in which Section 18 was among the provisions engaged. The cases span a broad range of legal contexts — land acquisition compensation disputes, arbitration award challenges, employment matters, cooperative society disputes, customs interim applications, and allied statutory proceedings — decided by courts in Delhi, Bombay, Karnataka, Rajasthan, Punjab-Haryana, and Kerala. The compilation is intended as a first-reference research index for in-house legal and tax teams, Big-4 associates, and law firm researchers tracking how Section 18 is invoked across different statutory regimes in 2026.

Research index only. This page lists and describes court rulings for informational and research purposes. Nothing on this page constitutes legal or tax advice. Readers should consult the full text of each judgment and qualified legal counsel before acting on any matter.

The statutory framework in one paragraph

Section 18 appears across multiple Indian statutes, and its precise operation depends on the enactment in which it is embedded. In the context of land acquisition legislation — a recurring theme across several rulings in this index — Section 18 has historically provided a mechanism for a person aggrieved by the Collector's award to require the matter to be referred to the court for determination of the amount of compensation or other related questions, thereby triggering a judicial review of the administrative determination. In the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 18 addresses equal treatment of the parties, requiring that each party be given a full opportunity to present its case. In the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, Section 18 pertains to the protection of the provident fund from attachment. The specific statutory home of "Section 18" in each case below is identified by the sections engaged and the court's framing as reflected in the source preview; readers must consult the full judgment to confirm the exact enactment.

The 12 rulings

1. Hanson Agro Limited vs Gail (India) Limited

Bench: Delhi High Court
Date: 1 September 2026
Sections engaged: 18, 26, 34(2)(a), 34(2)(b)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The petition (O.M.P. (COMM) 356/2016) was filed before the Delhi High Court and was heard alongside a cluster of connected commercial arbitration matters including petitions by M/s Ordyn Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Sreeraj S & Ors., M/s Vipin Gupta & Associates, DSIIDC, Navayuga Engineering Company Limited, NTPC, Sugam Construction Pvt. Ltd., and V.A. Azeez Proprietor of Selmec Engineering Construction, among others, all decided by a common judgment reserved on 1 April 2026 and pronounced on 1 September 2026. The source preview identifies this as an Original Side matter before the Delhi High Court involving multiple connected O.M.P. (COMM) petitions; the full outcome is not specified in the source data.

2. Dolphin Offshore Enterprises Ltd vs Union Of India Thr Ministry Of Labour And

Bench: Bombay High Court
Date: 1 September 2026
Sections engaged: 14, 14B, 18, 31(1), 31(6), 32A, 36, 5(21), 7A
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The writ petition (W.P. No. 6845 of 2023) was filed before the Bombay High Court by M/s Dolphin Offshore Enterprises (India) Limited against the Union of India through the Ministry of Labour & Employment, the Employee's Provident Fund Organization, and the Erstwhile Resolution Professional. The matter was reserved on 24 July 2026 and pronounced on 1 September 2026; the source preview reflects a judgment in civil appellate jurisdiction involving multiple provisions of EPF-related legislation. The full outcome is not specified in the source data.

3. Idbi Bank Ltd vs Sharanjeet Kaur

Bench: Delhi High Court
Date: 24 August 2026
Sections engaged: 18
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The present Letters Patent Appeal (LPA 38/2026) was filed by IDBI Bank Ltd. against a judgment dated 17 December 2025 passed in W.P.(C) 17666/2024 titled 'Sharanjeet Kaur v. IDBI Bank Ltd.', whereby a learned Single Judge had disposed of the writ petition with certain directions. Per the source preview, the factual matrix concerns the Respondent's joining IDBI Bank as Assistant Manager (Grade A); the appeal was reserved on 8 July 2026 and delivered on 24 August 2026. The full outcome is not specified in the source data.

4. Karnataka Income Tax Department House vs State Of Karnataka

Bench: Karnataka High Court
Date: 20 August 2026
Sections engaged: 18, 19
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: Two writ appeals — W.A. No. 321 of 2025 (LA-BDA) and W.A. No. 633 of 2025 (LA-BDA) — were heard together before the Karnataka High Court at Bengaluru, with the Bangalore Development Authority (represented by its Commissioner and Special Land Acquisition Officer) as appellants, and the State of Karnataka, Sri. Prakash N. Baldota, and the Karnataka Income Tax Department House Building Co-operative Society Ltd. as respondents. Per the source preview, this writ appeal was filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act praying to set aside an order dated 27 January 2025; the full outcome is not specified in the source data.

5. Anup Vikal vs State Of Maharashtra Thr The Industries

Bench: Bombay High Court
Date: 19 August 2026
Sections engaged: 18
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: Three connected writ petitions — W.P. No. 7430, 7434, and 8418 of 2026 — were heard together before the Bombay High Court in civil appellate jurisdiction, with Mr. Anup Vikal, Ms. Chandrani Sen, and Mr. Rohit Anand respectively as petitioners against the State of Maharashtra and others. The source preview reflects representation by senior counsel from Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas on behalf of the petitioners and Jayakar & Partners on behalf of Respondent No. 2; the full outcome is not specified in the source data.

6. Rms Atumation System Limited vs Tata Power Delhi Distribution Limited

Bench: Delhi High Court
Date: 18 August 2026
Sections engaged: 34, 18
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The petition (O.M.P. (COMM) 478/2022, CNR No. DLHC010452102022) was filed before the Delhi High Court challenging an arbitral award dated 4 August 2022 by which the Learned Arbitrator had rejected all claims of the Petitioner on the preliminary ground that they were barred by limitation. Per the source preview, the Petitioner submitted that limitation is a mixed question of fact and law and that the Learned Arbitrator could not have framed a preliminary issue on this aspect. The full outcome is not specified in the source data.

7. M/S Shree Vinayak Hotels And Resorts vs Desert Tulip Hotel And Resorts Pvt. Ltd

Bench: Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Date: 13 August 2026
Sections engaged: 18, 2(1)(c)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18805/2024 (CNR: RJHC010873552024) was filed before the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur by M/s Shree Vinayak Hotels And Resorts, through its partner and authorised signatory Sanjay Sethi, against Desert Tulip Hotel And Resorts Pvt. Ltd. and its directors. The source preview identifies the petitioner as resident at Desert Tulip Hotel And Resort, Plot No. 4, Hotel Complex, Jodhpur Road, NH 15, Jaisalmer (Raj.); the full outcome is not specified in the source data.

8. Siho Ram vs State Of Punjab & Ors

Bench: Punjab-Haryana High Court
Date: 11 August 2026
Sections engaged: 18
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The lead appeal RFA-6801-2014 was decided on 11 August 2026 along with a batch of 104 connected Regular First Appeals (59 cases in total as per source preview) before the Punjab-Haryana High Court at Chandigarh, all involving the State of Punjab and others as respondents. Connected appellants in the batch include Rattan Singh, Sukhwinder Kaur, Balbir Singh, Nirmal Jit Singh, Gurnam Singh, Amrik Singh, Balkar Singh, Hari Chand, and others as reflected in the source preview; the full outcome is not specified in the source data.

9. Commissioner Of Customs Import Mumbai vs Smith And Nephew Healthcare Pvt Limited

Bench: Bombay High Court
Date: 3 August 2026
Sections engaged: 18, 110A
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The Interim Application (L) No. 25458 of 2026 in Customs Appeal No. 4 of 2026 was preferred by the Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai Customs Zone-III, seeking a stay of Final Order A/86115/2025 dated 21 July 2025 passed by CESTAT. Per the source preview, the appellant-Revenue submitted that the Tribunal committed an error in extending the benefit of an exemption notification to the respondent, Smith & Nephew Healthcare Private Limited, and sought stay of that CESTAT order before the Bombay High Court. The full outcome is not specified in the source data.

10. Madhur Naina Co-Operative Housing vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors

Bench: Bombay High Court
Date: 22 July 2026
Sections engaged: 18(1)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: Writ Petition No. 850 of 2026 (CNR No. HCBM010015562026) was filed before the Bombay High Court by Madhur Naina Co-operative Housing Society Limited challenging an order dated 18 November 2025 passed by the Hon'ble Minister (Co-operation), which partly allowed Revision Application No. 218-A of 2025 filed by Respondent No. 4 (proposed society) and set aside orders dated 4 March 2025 of the Divisional Joint Registrar and 23 January 2025 of the Deputy Registrar. Per the source preview, the Hon'ble Minister (Co-operation) remanded the proceedings; the matter was reserved on 14 July 2026 and pronounced on 22 July 2026, with the full outcome not specified in the source data.

11. Seenath vs State Of Kerala

Bench: Kerala High Court
Date: 20 July 2026
Sections engaged: 18
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: LA.APP. No. 126 of 2019 (CNR: KLHC010495422019) was taken up before the Kerala High Court at Ernakulam, arising from LAR No. 71 of 2014 of the Assistant Sessions Court / II Additional Sub Court / II Additional Commercial Court, Thiruvananthapuram. Per the source preview, the appellant Seenath, aged 60 years, was represented by Advocate Sri. R.V. Sreejith, with the State of Kerala (represented by the District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram) and the Executive Engineer, PWD, National Highway Division as respondents; the full outcome is not specified in the source data.

12. Union Of India vs Sh. S.S. Aggarwal & Ors

Bench: Delhi High Court
Date: 14 July 2026
Sections engaged: 18, 28
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: Three connected Land Acquisition Appeals — LA.APP. 497/2023, LA.APP. 496/2023, and LA.APP. 546/2023 — were heard together before the Delhi High Court, with the Union of India as appellant (represented by counsel for UOI and Standing Counsel for DDA) and Sh. S.S. Aggarwal & Ors., Om Prakash & Ors., and Shyam Sunder Aggarwal and Ors. respectively as respondents. The matter was reserved on 16 April 2026 and decided on 14 July 2026; the full outcome is not specified in the source data.

Patterns across these 12 rulings

Land acquisition as the dominant context. Multiple rulings in this index — including Siho Ram vs State of Punjab & Ors (batch of 104 RFAs), Union of India vs Sh. S.S. Aggarwal & Ors, Seenath vs State of Kerala, and Karnataka Income Tax Department House vs State of Karnataka — arise from land acquisition disputes, consistent with Section 18's well-established role in reference proceedings for compensation determination under land acquisition legislation.
Batch and connected-matter disposal. Several decisions were pronounced as common judgments covering large batches of connected matters filed years apart (e.g., the Punjab-Haryana batch of 59 cases decided together, the Delhi arbitration cluster of 19 O.M.P. matters decided by a single judgment). This reflects a judicial practice of consolidating structurally similar Section 18-related disputes for efficiency.
Arbitration proceedings as a secondary cluster. Cases involving arbitration-related petitions — Hanson Agro Limited vs Gail (India) Limited and Rms Atumation System Limited vs Tata Power Delhi Distribution Limited — invoke Section 18 alongside provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, illustrating the provision's appearance in commercial dispute contexts.
Outcome data unavailability across all 12 cases. Every ruling in this compilation carries the designation "Outcome not specified in source," indicating that the structured corpus has captured the procedural identity and preview text of these judgments but has not yet extracted a dispositive outcome. Researchers should access the full judgment text to determine the final direction of each ruling.
Geographic spread across six High Courts. The 12 rulings span the Delhi, Bombay, Karnataka, Rajasthan (Jodhpur), Punjab-Haryana, and Kerala High Courts, suggesting that Section 18-related litigation is geographically distributed and not concentrated in any single jurisdiction during this period.

How to use this compilation

This index is intended as a starting point for identifying potentially relevant rulings, not as a substitute for reading the full judgment. Each entry in this compilation is drawn from the source preview and identity fields of the TaxNoticeAI corpus; because the text previews are necessarily truncated, they may not capture the full reasoning, findings, or final operative order of the court. Before relying on any ruling for research, litigation strategy, or compliance purposes, researchers should obtain and read the complete judgment from the originating court portal (such as the respective High Court's official website) or indiankanoon.org.

Researchers should also verify whether any ruling listed here has been subsequently stayed, appealed, reversed, or affirmed by a higher court. A High Court judgment pronounced in 2026 may be subject to a pending or decided Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court of India, and the status of the judgment as good law must be independently confirmed. Similarly, in matters where government entities are parties, check for any subsequent CBDT, CBIC, or Ministry-level circular or instruction that may affect the legal position.

Finally, because "Section 18" appears across multiple statutes — including land acquisition legislation, the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, the EPF Act, and others — researchers must identify the precise enactment from which Section 18 is drawn in each case before drawing any cross-case conclusions. The sections engaged field in each entry reflects the sections as recorded in the structured corpus; the governing statute should be confirmed from the full judgment.

Source

All cases listed above are drawn from the TaxNoticeAI structured legal corpus (16,101 Indian tax judgments, CBIC circulars, ITAT rulings, AAR rulings, GSTAT rulings), sourced from indiankanoon.org and official court portals.

Section 18 Land Acquisition & Arbitration: 12 High Court Rulings (2026)