Umri Pooph Pratappur (UPP) Tollways Pvt. Ltd. v. M.P. Road Development Corporation

Civil Appeal · 2025 INSC 907Decided 30 Jul 2025
C.A. No.-009920-009920 - 2025 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 13415 of 2025)
Justice J.B. Pardiwala · Justice R. Mahadevan

Background

The appellant, a road-building company, had a 2012 Concession Agreement with the Madhya Pradesh Road Development Corporation (MPRDC, a state entity) to build a toll road on a Build-Operate-Transfer basis. After cost overruns and disputes over delays, the appellant first filed a reference before the Madhya Pradesh Arbitration Tribunal (a special tribunal for state works-contract disputes), but later withdrew it and instead invoked a separate arbitration clause in the contract, getting the ICADR (International Centre for Alternative Dispute Resolution) to appoint a private arbitral tribunal. MPRDC challenged this in the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which quashed the ICADR-appointed tribunal's orders and held that the Madhya Pradesh Arbitration Tribunal alone had jurisdiction; the company then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court, holding that where a state government or its instrumentality is party to a "works contract" as defined under the Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983, that special Act gives the state-created Arbitration Tribunal exclusive jurisdiction, overriding any private arbitration clause and ousting both civil courts and forums like ICADR under the general Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Court also found the appellant's conduct (withdrawing its tribunal reference without preserving the right to refile, and then invoking a parallel private arbitration to escape a looming limitation bar) amounted to forum shopping in bad faith. However, "in the interests of justice," the Court permitted the appellant to apply within two weeks to recall its earlier withdrawal and revive the original reference before the Madhya Pradesh Arbitration Tribunal, directing that tribunal to decide the restoration application, and then the case itself, on a fixed timeline.

Lesson Learnt

When a state government or its corporation is a party to a works contract, a special statutory tribunal created for that purpose can override a private arbitration clause in the contract; parties cannot pick and choose between statutory and contractual dispute-resolution forums to dodge limitation periods or unfavourable proceedings.

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