M/S Modern Builders vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh
Background
Modern Builders was awarded a contract to construct a minor bridge for the Madhya Pradesh government, but the state rescinded the contract. Because the work order had an arbitration clause, the builder sought arbitration; a state tribunal ruled that since an arbitration clause existed, the general Arbitration and Conciliation Act (not the state's own 1983 arbitration law) applied, so a court-appointed arbitrator gave an award in the builder's favour in 2014. The state challenged the award years later, and the High Court set it aside solely on the ground that a later Supreme Court ruling required the state's own 1983 Act to apply instead.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court held that the state had never objected to the arbitrator's jurisdiction at the appropriate stage. It only raised the 1983-Act argument in written submissions before the arbitrator, and never challenged the High Court's earlier order appointing the arbitrator. Relying on its own prior ruling that an award should not be annulled on this technical jurisdictional ground if the objection wasn't timely raised, and invoking its special constitutional power to do complete justice, the Court set aside the High Court's judgment and restored the state's pending appeal for a decision purely on the merits, directing that the award not be undone merely for the 1983-Act reason.
Lesson Learnt
A party that stays silent about a forum/jurisdiction objection at the right procedural stage cannot spring that objection years later to unwind an arbitration award: objections to an arbitrator's authority must be raised promptly, not as an afterthought.