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

05 Nov 2025

TBO Tek Q2 Profit Climbs 12%, Revenue Surges 26% YoY

TBO Tek Limited one of the world’s largest travel distribution platforms, reported a solid performance for Q2 FY26 with a 26 per cent year-on-year increase in revenue to Rs 5.68 billion, reflecting broad-based growth and improving profitability.The company recorded a Gross Transaction Value (GTV) of Rs 8,901 crore, up 12 per cent YoY, driven by strong performance across Europe, MEA, and APAC regions. Adjusted EBITDA before acquisition-related costs stood at Rs 1.04 billion, up 16 per cent YoY, translating into an 18.32 per cent margin compared to 16.56 per cent in Q1 FY26. Profit after tax r..

Infrastructure Energy

05 Nov 2025

Northern Graphite, Rain Carbon Secure R&D Grant for Greener Battery Materials

Northern Graphite Corporation and Rain Carbon Canada Inc, a subsidiary of Rain Carbon Inc, have jointly received up to C$860,000 (€530,000) in funding under the Canada–Germany Collaborative Industrial Research and Development Programme to develop sustainable battery anode materials.The two-year, C$2.2 million project aims to transform natural graphite processing by-products into high-performance, battery-grade anode material (BAM). Supported by the National Research Council of Canada Industrial Research Assistance Programme (NRC IRAP) and Germany’s Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs a..

Infrastructure Urban

05 Nov 2025

Antony Waste Q2 Revenue Jumps 16%; Subsidiary Wins Rs 3,200 Cr WtE Projects

Antony Waste Handling Cell Limited (AWHCL), a leading player in India’s municipal solid waste management sector, announced a 16 per cent year-on-year increase in total operating revenue to Rs 2.33 billion for Q2 FY26. The growth was driven by higher waste volumes, escalated contracts, and strong operational execution.EBITDA rose 18 per cent to Rs 570 million, with margins steady at 21.6 per cent, while profit after tax stood at Rs 173 million, up 13 per cent YoY. Revenue from Municipal Solid Waste Collection and Transportation (MSW C&T) reached Rs 1.605 billion, and MSW Processing re..