LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

M/S Lion Engineering Consultants v. State of Madhya Pradesh

Civil Appeal · 2018 INSC 1222Decided 22 Mar 2018
Civil Appeal Nos. 8984-8985 of 2017
Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel · Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman

Background

An arbitrator had ruled in favour of Lion Engineering Consultants in a dispute over a works contract. The State of Madhya Pradesh challenged the award under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act before the trial court, and after three years sought to amend its objections: a request the trial court rejected but the High Court allowed under Article 227 of the Constitution. Lion Engineering appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing the amendment was time-barred and that a jurisdictional objection not raised before the arbitrator under Section 16 could not later be raised under Section 34.

Decision Breakdown

The State's counsel ultimately did not press the amendment, which the Court agreed should not be allowed as it was beyond limitation, rendering that specific issue moot. On the broader legal question, the Court held that a plea regarding jurisdiction can be raised as an objection under Section 34 even if it was not first raised under Section 16 of the Act. The Court also expressly overruled paragraphs 16 and 17 of its earlier decision in MSP Infrastructure Ltd. v. Madhya Pradesh Road Development Corporation Ltd., clarifying that "public policy of India" under the Act refers to law in force in India generally, State law as well as Central law, not only all-India law. Having decided these points, the Court set aside the High Court's impugned order and disposed of the appeal, while leaving the State's remaining Section 34 objections (including whether the Central Arbitration Act is excluded by a State tribunal law) to be argued before the trial court.

Lesson Learnt

A party challenging an arbitration award is not necessarily barred from raising a jurisdiction-related objection in court under Section 34 merely because it wasn't first raised before the arbitrator under Section 16, and "public policy of India," for arbitration purposes, covers State laws too, not just central legislation.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)

More rulings in Arbitration & Commercial Law

Arbitration & Commercial LawSupreme Court of India

Modern Asset v. KNK Constructions Private Limited

The Supreme Court held that an arbitration clause survives termination of the underlying contract (the "doctrine of separability") and that, at the Section 11 reference stage, courts only check for the prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement: deeper questions about the effect of the resolution plan are for the arbitrator. It confirmed that while the IBC's "clean slate" principle extinguishes creditors' claims against the insolvent company once a resolution plan is approved, it does not extinguish the claims the company itself (through its SRA) may have against its own debtors, since the Resolution Professional had not raised a counter-claim on KNK's behalf during the insolvency process. However, noting the inequity of letting KNK recover fresh dues on the same contract while Modern Asset's own claim had been wiped out to 0.72 %, and following its own recent precedent in Ujaas Energy, the Court modified the High Court's order: Modern Asset may raise its extinguished claim in the arbitration solely as a set-off against any amount it is found to owe KNK, but cannot use it to claim any fresh recovery.

Decided 8 Oct 2026Read case
Arbitration & Commercial LawDelhi High Court

S And P Infrastructure Developers (Pvt) Ltd vs. National Highways Authority of India

The Court held that the Joint Registrar's order overlooked an earlier ruling of this Court (M/s URC Construction (P) Ltd. v. Airports Authority of India) establishing that an instrument must be stamped at or before execution, with any delay attracting penalty, not just a top-up payment. Since the Joint Registrar's order was not in line with the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, the Court set it aside. The decree holder's counsel then sought to withdraw the petition with liberty to refile once the stamp duty issue was properly resolved, which the Court granted.

Decided 8 Oct 2026Read case
Arbitration & Commercial LawSupreme Court of India

Shubham Equipment Private Limited & Anr. v. Rothwell Water Company Limited & Ors.

The Supreme Court held that the Licence Agreement, the JVA, and the MoU each covered different subject matter (technology licensing, the joint venture company, and logistics services respectively), so the JVA and MoU's own arbitration clauses, providing for arbitration in Mumbai under Indian law, governed the disputes arising under them, not the Licence Agreement's Korea clause. Both agreements also contained "entire agreement" clauses showing they were meant to stand independently. The Court restricted itself to the limited inquiry required at the reference stage under Section 11(6-A), whether an arbitration agreement prima facie exists, and left deeper questions, including whether a non-signatory subsidiary (RBIPL) could be bound, to the arbitrator. It allowed the petitions and appointed a former Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court as the sole arbitrator.

Decided 8 Oct 2026Read case
Arbitration & Commercial LawDelhi High Court

M/S Redcliffe Lifetech Pvt Ltd vs. Connect and Heal Primary Care Pvt. Ltd.

Since the dispute was resolved, the petitioner's counsel sought leave to withdraw the petition rather than continue with it. The Court granted leave and dismissed the petition as withdrawn, along with any pending applications.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Arbitration & Commercial LawDelhi High Court

M/S Redcliffe Lifetech Pvt. Ltd. vs. Lifespan Wellness Private Limited

The Court reiterated that at the stage of appointing an arbitrator under Section 11, it need only check whether an arbitration agreement exists on its face, not decide the merits of the dispute. Finding the arbitration clause undisputed, the Court appointed a named advocate as sole arbitrator under the aegis of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC), leaving all other objections (including arbitrability and jurisdiction) to be decided by the arbitrator.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Arbitration & Commercial LawDelhi High Court

M/S. Keshari Multi Functional Complex Pvt Ltd vs. Rail Land Development Authority

Because the awarded amount was already deposited pursuant to the earlier stay order, the Court held nothing further survived for consideration in the present enforcement petition. It disposed of the petition, giving the decree holder liberty to refile later after paying the proper stamp duty (and any penalty) under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case