Supreme Court dismissed the SLP preferred by MPRDC

22 Oct 2021 CW Team

The contention of MPRDC that the Arbitral Tribunal constituted in terms of the agreement doesn’t have jurisdiction to adjudicate the disputes and the same need to be referred to Tribunal as per M.P Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 has been negated by the Courts.

Vindhyachal Expressway Pvt (VEPL) entered into a Concession Agreement with Madhya Pradesh Road Development Corporation (MPRDC) for four laning with paved shoulders between Km. 229+829 at Rewa City to Km. 140+600 at MP/UP border in the state of Madhya Pradesh (NH-7) on DBFOT basis. VEPL invoked arbitration on July 6, 2020 in terms of the provision of the concession agreement and the same was to be conducted in terms of the rules of International Centre for Alternative Dispute Resolution, New Delhi (ICADR).

MPRDC and MoRT&H (Respondents) were made party by VEPL as MoRT&H being the Principal and MPRDC is the Executing Agency. Since Respondents failed to nominate their Arbitrator then on September 24, 2020 ICADR duly nominated the Arbitrator on behalf of the Respondents. The Ld. Tribunal got constituted on October 27, 2020 comprising Justice A K Sikri (Retd), Justice Vikramjit Sen (Retd) and A S Chandhiok, Sr. Adv. Thereafter, MPRDC filed an application under Section 16 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and contended that the Tribunal doesn’t have the power to adjudicate the disputes as the same amount to Works Contract and so the same need to be adjudicated by the Tribunal under M P Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983. VEPL duly argued and contended that the scope of work doesn’t fall under the definition of works contract and MPRDC is only the executing agency and MoRT&H is the Principal Authority in terms of the MoU dated September 30, 2009.

The Tribunal ruled in favor of VEPL and dismissed the Section 16 application vide order dated December 29, 2020. MPRDC challenged the said order under Article 226 of Constitution at the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur by preferring a Writ Petition being W.P No. 11783 of 2021 and the same was dismissed vide judgment dated September 03, 2021. The Supreme Court has duly stated that the Court(s) under Article 226 cannot give any relief against the order of the Tribunal under Section 16 and the same need to be challenged under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996.

The order of the High Court and the dismissal of the SLP duly promotes the party autonomy in terms of opting for Arbitration methodology.

Former Solicitor General Ranjit Kumar, Senior Advocate appeared for the VEPL before the Hon’ble Courts. The S&A Team led by Manoj K Singh, Founding Partner, and Nilava Bandyopadhyay, Sr. Partner is representing M/s VEPL in the arbitration and also represented in the Writ petition and the SLP.

In the matter of Madhya Pradesh Road Development Corporation (MPRDC) vs MoRT&H& M/s VEPL being SLP (C) 15646 of 2021, Supreme Court has dismissed the SLP preferred by MPRDC and upheld the impugned judgment dated September 03, 2021 rendered by Division Bench of High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in W.P No. 11783 of 2021. The contention of MPRDC that the Arbitral Tribunal constituted in terms of the agreement doesn’t have jurisdiction to adjudicate the disputes and the same need to be referred to Tribunal as per M.P Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 has been negated by the Courts.Vindhyachal Expressway Pvt (VEPL) entered into a Concession Agreement with Madhya Pradesh Road Development Corporation (MPRDC) for four laning with paved shoulders between Km. 229+829 at Rewa City to Km. 140+600 at MP/UP border in the state of Madhya Pradesh (NH-7) on DBFOT basis. VEPL invoked arbitration on July 6, 2020 in terms of the provision of the concession agreement and the same was to be conducted in terms of the rules of International Centre for Alternative Dispute Resolution, New Delhi (ICADR). MPRDC and MoRT&H (Respondents) were made party by VEPL as MoRT&H being the Principal and MPRDC is the Executing Agency. Since Respondents failed to nominate their Arbitrator then on September 24, 2020 ICADR duly nominated the Arbitrator on behalf of the Respondents. The Ld. Tribunal got constituted on October 27, 2020 comprising Justice A K Sikri (Retd), Justice Vikramjit Sen (Retd) and A S Chandhiok, Sr. Adv. Thereafter, MPRDC filed an application under Section 16 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and contended that the Tribunal doesn’t have the power to adjudicate the disputes as the same amount to Works Contract and so the same need to be adjudicated by the Tribunal under M P Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983. VEPL duly argued and contended that the scope of work doesn’t fall under the definition of works contract and MPRDC is only the executing agency and MoRT&H is the Principal Authority in terms of the MoU dated September 30, 2009. The Tribunal ruled in favor of VEPL and dismissed the Section 16 application vide order dated December 29, 2020. MPRDC challenged the said order under Article 226 of Constitution at the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur by preferring a Writ Petition being W.P No. 11783 of 2021 and the same was dismissed vide judgment dated September 03, 2021. The Supreme Court has duly stated that the Court(s) under Article 226 cannot give any relief against the order of the Tribunal under Section 16 and the same need to be challenged under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996. The order of the High Court and the dismissal of the SLP duly promotes the party autonomy in terms of opting for Arbitration methodology.Former Solicitor General Ranjit Kumar, Senior Advocate appeared for the VEPL before the Hon’ble Courts. The S&A Team led by Manoj K Singh, Founding Partner, and Nilava Bandyopadhyay, Sr. Partner is representing M/s VEPL in the arbitration and also represented in the Writ petition and the SLP.

Infrastructure Transport

06 Feb 2026

Lucknow Metro East-West Corridor Consultancy Contract Awarded

The Uttar Pradesh Metro Rail Corporation has awarded the first construction-related consultancy contract for the Lucknow Metro East West Corridor to a joint venture of AYESA Ingenieria Arquitectura SAU and AYESA India Pvt Ltd. The firm was declared the lowest bidder for the Detailed Design Consultant contract for Lucknow Metro Line-2 under Phase 1B and the contract was recommended following the financial bid. The contract is valued at Rs 159.0 million (mn), covering design services for the corridor. Lucknow Metro Line-2 envisages the construction of an 11.165 kilometre corridor connecting Cha..

Infrastructure Urban

06 Feb 2026

Div Com Kashmir Urges Fast Tracking Of Jhelum Water Transport Project

The Divisional Commissioner of Kashmir has called for the fast-tracking of the Jhelum water transport project, urging district administrations and relevant agencies to accelerate planning and clearances. In a meeting convened at the divisional headquarters, the commissioner instructed officials from irrigation, public health engineering and municipal departments to prioritise the project and coordinate survey and design work. The directive emphasised removal of administrative bottlenecks and close monitoring to ensure timely mobilisation of resources and contractors. Officials were told to in..

Infrastructure Urban

06 Feb 2026

Interarch Reports Strong Q3 And Nine Month Results

Interarch Building Solutions Limited reported unaudited results for the third quarter and nine months ended 31 December 2025, recording strong revenue growth driven by execution and a robust order book. Net revenue for the third quarter rose by 43.7 per cent to Rs 5.225 billion (bn), compared with Rs 3.636 bn a year earlier, reflecting heightened demand in pre-engineered building projects. The company’s total order book as at 31 January 2026 stood at Rs 16.85 bn, supporting near-term visibility. EBITDA excluding other income for the quarter increased by 43.2 per cent to Rs 503 million (mn),..