← Back to Our Advocates
Mr. Nikhilesh Krishnan

Senior Managing Partner

Mr. Nikhilesh Krishnan

Education

BA, LLB | Dispute Resolution & Litigation / Member of Society of Construction Law

Profile

Mr. Krishnan has over 25 years standing at the bar, with a significant practice in construction, engineering, infrastructure, mining, joint venture, franchisee, sale of goods, and general commercial and civil disputes. Mr. Krishnan regularly appears before High Courts, particularly the Delhi High Court, and has represented parties in complex, high-value domestic arbitrations under the rules of Delhi International Arbitration Center (DIAC), Indian Council of Arbitration (ICA), Indian Council of Arbitration and Dispute Resolution (ICADR), and others. In addition, he has many reported cases to his name.

Some important cases pertaining to various Indian Laws in which Mr. Nikhilesh Krishnan has appeared are –

• Gail India Limited Vs. Taurant Projects Limited, O.M.P.(Misc.)(Comm.) 354/2026 & Taurant Projects Limited Vs. Gail India Limited O.M.P. (T) (Comm.) 109/2026 — The Hon'ble DHC while rejecting opposition of extension of time under Section 29A and request of substitution of AT on grounds of procedural lapses, bias etc., held that such objections are untenable under Section 29A and extended the mandate holding sufficient ground for extension of time existed and rejected prayer for termination of mandate under Section 14 of A & C Act holding grounds alleged of procedural lapses etc. did not meet requirement of Section 14 of A & C Act.

• Techno Aircon Industries Pvt. Limited v. ABB Limited, 2025 LAWPACK(Del) 116333 (FAO (OS) Comm 23/2024) — The Hon'ble Division Bench of Delhi High Court dismissed the Appeal under Section 37 of A & C Act, holding that challenge to territorial objections is untenable when AT is appointed with consent in Section 11 petition and same is not challenged and further arbitrator's findings based on admissions were reasonable and factual challenge is not permissible.

• Mohammed M. I. v. M/s. HLL Life Care Ltd., 2025 KHC OnLine 1675 — where the issue of maintainability under Article 227 of Indian Constitution was raised to challenge an arbitral award under Section 34 of 1996 Act. The Hon'ble Kerala High Court held that Article 227 cannot bypass statutory appeal remedies, aligning with the principle of minimal judicial intervention.

• Syed Farhan Ali v. M/s ABB India Limited, 2026:DHC:8008 — the issue in relation to enforcement of arbitral award, was qua coercive civil imprisonment against a company's authorized representative under Order XXI Rule 41(3) CPC for failing to disclose a bank account in asset affidavits, wherein the Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that an officer of company who conceals material assets in Rule 41(2) disclosures faces Rule 41(3), is liable to be sent to civil imprisonment.

• Techno Aircon Industries Pvt. Limited v. ABB Limited, 2023 LAWPACK(Del) 103752 — the challenge to arbitral award under Section 34 was raised, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court dismissed the petition inter alia holding that stage of territorial objections was waived and the arbitrator's findings based on admissions were reasonable.

• Telecommunication Consultants India Ltd. v. Shivaa Trading, 2024 LAWPACK(Del) 101926 — whereby unilateral appointment of Arbitrator under 12(5) was in question and the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held that unless there is an express written waiver post-dispute, such appointments are de jure ineligible and render the award void ab initio.

• Ravinder Kumar Yadav v. Tele Communications Consultants India Ltd., 2024:DHC:4955 — the issue of limitation under Section 34 petition was raised after dismissal by a court lacking pecuniary jurisdiction. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court dismissed the petition as time-barred since it was filed beyond the permissible 120-day limit.

• Poonam Mittal v. M/s Creat Ed Pvt. Ltd., 2024 LAWPACK(Del) 105790 — the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in reference to the scope of its power under Section 29A(6) of 1996 Act held that substitution is an extreme measure applicable only when proceedings are unduly delayed by the arbitrator and not permissible otherwise.

• Versatile Commotrade Pvt. Ltd. v. Madan Gopal, 2024 LAWPACK(Del) 108769 — (Scope of judicial examination under Section 11 regarding non-signatories, stamp duty, and limitation) the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held that referral courts shall only examine the prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement, leaving other objections to the tribunal.

• M/s HFCL Ltd. Vs. Telecommunications Consultants India Ltd., OMP (I) (Comm) 173/2022 — wherein it has been held that Court cannot direct parties to enter into agreement even though terms are not mutually agreeable and no direction should be given under Section 9 if same would be in violation of provisions of Specific Relief Act.

• C-Tel Infosystems Pvt. Ltd. vs. Telecommunications Consultants India Ltd., WP (C) 13426/2021 — wherein it has been held that writ court will interfere in tender issue once work is awarded to third party and third party interest is created.

• Versatile Commotrade Vs. Kesar Devi, 2019 AIR (Del) 155 — whereby the Hon'ble Delhi High Court allowed the suit at the stage of framing of issues in favour of Versatile holding that in absence of any loss pleaded and established by the defendant/seller, seller cannot entirely forfeit the earnest money paid by the buyer.

• Rashi Projects Private Limited v. M/s Sagar Agriculture and Properties Private Limited & Ors., SLP (C) No. 26593 of 2018 — the issue was raised in regard to validity of an ex-parte arbitral award passed without serving the Statement of Claim and the Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the SLP, holding that an ex-parte award passed without serving the Statement of Claim was rightly set aside under Section 34(2)(a)(iii).

• MBL Vs. TCIL (OMP 82/2015, Judgment dated 16.01.2015 in High Court of Delhi) — Whereby got Petition under Section 14 & 15 of Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 dismissed and the Hon'ble High Court held that once arbitrator dismisses application under Section 12 holding that he is not biased and has jurisdiction, the other side has to wait till passing of award to challenge the arbitrator.

• Happy Electricals Vs. HLL Life Care (Section 11 petition before Nainital High Court) — successfully argued that despite appointing party not appointing arbitrator within 30 days of receipt of notice of arbitration, but still if arbitration clause provides that arbitrator is to be nominated by the authority concerned, then Court under Section 11 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Act is bound to give first opportunity to the appointing party to appoint the arbitrator.

• BE. Simoes Vs. Elizabeth (SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court) — on the issue on jurisdiction clause providing territorial jurisdiction of particular place, confer exclusive jurisdiction at such place regarding petition under Section 9 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Act to the exclusion of all other courts.

• Amit Goyal Vs. Jay Ace Technology (Civil Revision petition before Nainital High Court) — Successfully argued on the question of law that even if amendment of plaint changes the description of suit premises, still amendment is permissible.

• Hindustan Paper Corporation Vs. M/s Western Express, 2016 (228) DLT 61 — Whereby got the judgment debtor sent for civil imprisonment on the ground that judgment debtor had deliberately flouted directions of the Court and made false averments.

• Hindustan Paper Corporation Vs. M/s Nav Shakti, 2012 (192) DLT 80 — Wherein it was held that once conditional payment towards full and final settlement is received without any objection, there is acceptance of full and final settlement in terms of Section 8 of Contract Act.

• ABB v Sandeep Suri (RFA 7/2004, Delhi High Court) — holding that fraud nullifies everything and party who has illegally and fraudulently received benefit of share transfer, is bound to restore such benefit to aggrieved party.