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 Urban

04 May 2026

Jyoti Structures FY26 profit rises 56.5%

Jyoti Structures (JSL) recently reported strong financial results for the quarter and year ended 31 March 2026, driven by disciplined execution, cost management and steady progress across its order book.For Q4 FY2025-26, total income rose 44.2 per cent to Rs 2.41 billion from Rs 1.67 billion in Q4 FY2024-25. EBITDA increased 58.6 per cent to Rs 237 million, while EBITDA margin improved by 89 basis points to 9.84 per cent. Profit before tax grew 53.3 per cent to Rs 188.5 million, and net profit rose 51.9 per cent to Rs 181.4 million.For FY2025-26, total income grew 53.1 per cent to Rs 7.72 bill..

Infrastructure Energy

04 May 2026

Cat BEPU to Power Doppstadt Separator at IFAT 2026

Caterpillar’s Cat Battery Electric Power Unit (BEPU) has been selected by Doppstadt to power its SWS 6 Spiral Shaft Separator, which will be showcased for the first time at IFAT 2026 in Munich, Germany, from 4–7 May.The compact plug-and-play BEPU is designed to replace a diesel engine within the same space, using the same mounting locations and relative machine position. It integrates the battery, motor, inverter, onboard charging, cooling and controls, enabling OEMs to electrify existing chassis platforms without extensive redesign.Caterpillar and Cat dealer Zeppelin Power Systems have be..

Infrastructure Urban

04 May 2026

VECV sales rise 6.9% in April 2026

VE Commercial Vehicles, a joint venture between Volvo Group and Eicher Motors, recorded sales of 7,318 units in April 2026, compared to 6,846 units in April 2025, registering 6.9 per cent growth. The total included 7,159 units under the Eicher brand and 159 units under the Volvo brand.Eicher branded trucks and buses reported sales of 7,159 units during the month, up 6.6 per cent from 6,717 units in April 2025. In the domestic commercial vehicle market, Eicher sales rose 8.6 per cent to 6,797 units from 6,257 units a year earlier.Exports declined 21.3 per cent, with VECV recording 362 units in ..