Offshore Infrastructures Limited vs M/s Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited

Not available · 2025 INSC 1196Decided 7 Oct 2025
Not available
Justice Dipankar Datta · Justice Augustine George Masih

Background

Offshore Infrastructures was awarded a contract by Bharat Oman Refineries (later merged into Bharat Petroleum) to build a Modular Penex Unit at the Bina Refinery. After completion, disputes arose over final dues; the appellant issued a "No Claim Certificate" in October 2018 but later, in 2021, raised a consolidated claim and sought appointment of an arbitrator under a clause naming the respondent's own Managing Director (or his nominee) as arbitrator: a clause since made invalid by 2015 amendments barring persons connected to a party from acting as arbitrator. The Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissed the appellant's Section 11(6) application both as time-barred and because it treated the arbitration clause as having become inoperative.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that an arbitration clause naming an interested person (like the respondent's Managing Director) as arbitrator does not become void in its entirety merely because that specific appointment mechanism was invalidated by the 2015 amendment to Section 12(5): the core agreement to arbitrate survives, and courts can step in under Section 11(6) to appoint an independent arbitrator, following its own precedents in Perkins Eastman and Voestalpine. On limitation, the Court held that ordinarily the three-year period would have run from when the final bill became due (April 2018), making the 2022 application late; however, applying its own COVID-19 order excluding the period from 15 March 2020 to 28 February 2022 from all limitation computations, the application was actually filed within time. The High Court's orders were set aside, and the dispute was referred to the Delhi International Arbitration Centre to appoint an arbitrator.

Lesson Learnt

An arbitration clause that names a biased or now-disqualified person as the arbitrator is not thereby destroyed altogether. Courts will read it purposively and appoint an independent arbitrator instead; and parties calculating limitation for arbitration claims must remember to apply the Supreme Court's blanket COVID-19 limitation exclusion (15 March 2020 to 28 February 2022).

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