# Central Organisation for Railway Electrification v. M/s ECI SPIC SMO MCML (JV) A Joint Venture Company

- **Citation:** 2024 INSC 857
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2024-11-08
- **Bench:** Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Hrishikesh Roy, Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, J.B. Pardiwala, Manoj Misra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/central-organisation-for-railway-electrification-v-m-s-eci-spic-smo-mcml-jv-a-37913
- **Pages:** 156

## Headnote

a) Whether an appointment process which allows a party who has
an interest in the dispute to unilaterally appoint a sole arbitrator,
or curate a panel of arbitrators and mandate that the other party
select their arbitrator from the panel is valid in law; b) Whether the
principle of equal treatment of parties applies at the stage of the
appointment of arbitrators; and c) Whether an appointment process
in a public-private contract which allows a government entity to
unilaterally appoint a sole arbitrator or majority of the arbitrators
of the arbitral tribunal is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
Headnotes†
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Unilateral appointment
clauses in a public-private contract:
Held: [Per Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI for himself and
J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, JJ.] The possibility of bias is
real in situations where an arbitration clause allows a government
company to unilaterally appoint a sole arbitrator or control the
majority of the arbitrators - Since the government has control
over the arbitral tribunal, it can chart the course of the arbitration
proceedings to the prejudice of the other party - Resultantly,
unilateral appointment clauses fail to provide an effective substitute
for judicial proceedings in India - Further, a unilateral appointment
clause is inherently exclusionary and violates the principle of
equal treatment of parties and procedural equality - Unilateral
appointment clauses in a public-private contract fail to provide
the minimum level of integrity required in authorities performing
quasi-judicial functions such as arbitral tribunals - Therefore, a
* Author
2174
[2024] 11 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
unilateral appointment clause is against the principle of arbitration,
that is, impartial resolution of disputes between parties - It also
violates the nemo judex rule which constitutes the public policy of
India in the context of arbitration - Therefore, unilateral appointment
clauses in public-private contracts are violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution for being arbitrary in addition to being violative of the
equality principle under the Arbitration Act. [Paras 162, 163] -
[Per Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, J. (dissenting)] One
cannot, as an advance ruling, give a declaration that all arbitration
clauses enabling unilateral appointments are null and void at
this stage - A priori declaration that arbitration agreements that
prescribe unilateral appointment procedures are invalid can lead
to many problems in the day-to-day working of arbitral remedies -
Particularly for institutions involving multiple transactions such as
insurance claims, credit card defaults, etc. involving large number
of cases but each claim may be of small sum - Our declaration of
law substantially covers domestic arbitration, it will not be confined
to high and international commercial arbitration - There could
also be situations where the unilateral constitution of the panel of
arbitrators could have credible members with respect to which no
one can have an objection - Rather than declaring that all such
agreements are void, it would be better to strengthen the remedial
mechanisms available under the Act. [Paras 54.4 and 54.5] - [Per
Hrishikesh Roy, J. (dissenting)] All unilateral appointments must
not be declared void by way of a declaration of this Court - The
2015 Amendment in s.12(5) itself provides for a specific waiver
i.e. (a) an express consent in writing and (b) the consent must be
obtained after the dispute has arisen - Therefore, it is abundantly
clear that an agreement between the parties (provided it satisfies
the specific waiver requirements u/s.12(5)) can effectively cure
any concerns about impartiality or independence in such cases -
Adequate safeguards are provided within the Arbitration Act to
ensure a level playing field - A search within the provisions of
the Arbitration Act should first be made - The obligations of fair
treatment should be grounded in the Arbitrati

## Text

_Characters 0–39,058 of 389,334. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39058 for what follows._

[2024] 11 S.C.R. 2173 : 2024 INSC 857
Central Organisation for Railway Electrification
v.
M/s ECI SPIC SMO MCML (JV) A Joint Venture Company
(Civil Appeal No(s). 9486-9487 of 2019)
08 November 2024
[Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud,* CJI, Hrishikesh Roy,*
Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha,* J.B. Pardiwala and
Manoj Misra, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
a) Whether an appointment process which allows a party who has
an interest in the dispute to unilaterally appoint a sole arbitrator,
or curate a panel of arbitrators and mandate that the other party
select their arbitrator from the panel is valid in law; b) Whether the
principle of equal treatment of parties applies at the stage of the
appointment of arbitrators; and c) Whether an appointment process
in a public-private contract which allows a government entity to
unilaterally appoint a sole arbitrator or majority of the arbitrators
of the arbitral tribunal is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
Headnotes†
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Unilateral appointment
clauses in a public-private contract:
Held: [Per Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI for himself and
J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, JJ.] The possibility of bias is
real in situations where an arbitration clause allows a government
company to unilaterally appoint a sole arbitrator or control the
majority of the arbitrators - Since the government has control
over the arbitral tribunal, it can chart the course of the arbitration
proceedings to the prejudice of the other party - Resultantly,
unilateral appointment clauses fail to provide an effective substitute
for judicial proceedings in India - Further, a unilateral appointment
clause is inherently exclusionary and violates the principle of
equal treatment of parties and procedural equality - Unilateral
appointment clauses in a public-private contract fail to provide
the minimum level of integrity required in authorities performing
quasi-judicial functions such as arbitral tribunals - Therefore, a
* Author
2174
[2024] 11 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
unilateral appointment clause is against the principle of arbitration,
that is, impartial resolution of disputes between parties - It also
violates the nemo judex rule which constitutes the public policy of
India in the context of arbitration - Therefore, unilateral appointment
clauses in public-private contracts are violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution for being arbitrary in addition to being violative of the
equality principle under the Arbitration Act. [Paras 162, 163] -
[Per Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, J. (dissenting)] One
cannot, as an advance ruling, give a declaration that all arbitration
clauses enabling unilateral appointments are null and void at
this stage - A priori declaration that arbitration agreements that
prescribe unilateral appointment procedures are invalid can lead
to many problems in the day-to-day working of arbitral remedies -
Particularly for institutions involving multiple transactions such as
insurance claims, credit card defaults, etc. involving large number
of cases but each claim may be of small sum - Our declaration of
law substantially covers domestic arbitration, it will not be confined
to high and international commercial arbitration - There could
also be situations where the unilateral constitution of the panel of
arbitrators could have credible members with respect to which no
one can have an objection - Rather than declaring that all such
agreements are void, it would be better to strengthen the remedial
mechanisms available under the Act. [Paras 54.4 and 54.5] - [Per
Hrishikesh Roy, J. (dissenting)] All unilateral appointments must
not be declared void by way of a declaration of this Court - The
2015 Amendment in s.12(5) itself provides for a specific waiver
i.e. (a) an express consent in writing and (b) the consent must be
obtained after the dispute has arisen - Therefore, it is abundantly
clear that an agreement between the parties (provided it satisfies
the specific waiver requirements u/s.12(5)) can effectively cure
any concerns about impartiality or independence in such cases -
Adequate safeguards are provided within the Arbitration Act to
ensure a level playing field - A search within the provisions of
the Arbitration Act should first be made - The obligations of fair
treatment should be grounded in the Arbitration Act rather than in
the principles of Constitutional or administrative law - The choice
of the parties in the agreement should not be disregarded without
compelling reasons, through judicial intervention especially when
the Arbitration Act provides clear remedies u/ss.12, 13, 14, and
15 of the Arbitration Act - It is only when there is a complete lack
of consensus between the parties that the Court's interference
u/s.11 could be justified. [Paras 41, 42]
[2024] 11 S.C.R.
2175
Central Organisation for Railway Electrification v.
M/s ECI SPIC SMO MCML (JV) A Joint Venture Company
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Whether the principle
of equal treatment of parties applies at the stage of the
appointment of arbitrators:
Held: [Per Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI for himself
and J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, JJ.] Independence and
impartiality of arbitral proceedings and equality of parties are
concomitant principles - The independence and impartiality of
arbitral proceedings can be effectively enforced only if the parties
can participate equally at all stages of an arbitral process -
Therefore, the principle of equal treatment of parties applies
at all stages of arbitral proceedings, including the stage of the
appointment of arbitrators. [Para 75] - [Per Pamidighantam Sri
Narasimha, J. (concurring)] The text and the context of Section
18 as is evident from the scheme of the Act eschews application
of Section 18 at the time of appointment - This is clear through
two factors: first, through the placement of Section 18 in Chapter
V, on 'Conduct of arbitral proceedings', which comes after Chapter
III on 'Composition of arbitral tribunal'; and second, through the
wording of Section 18, which makes it clear that the obligation
to treat the parties with equality is on the arbitral tribunal, rather
than the parties to the arbitration agreement - The later portion of
Section 18, which mandates that "each party shall be given a full
opportunity to present his case", further fortifies this view. [Para
54.3] - [Per Hrishikesh Roy, J. (concurring)] The principle of
equality u/s.18 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,1996 applies
at all stages of the proceedings including the stage of appointment
of arbitrators - The Arbitration Act does not provide special or
different treatment to government or government undertakings
involved in arbitration. [Para 2]
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Application of Principle
of Equal Treatment of Parties - Appoitment of Arbitrators:
Held: [Per Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI for himself and J.B.
Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, JJ.] The principle of equal treatment
of parties applies at all stages of arbitration proceedings, including
the stage of appointment of arbitrators. [Para 169(a)]
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Does Arbitration Act
prohibit PSUs from empanelling potential arbitrators:
Held: [Per Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI for himself and
J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, JJ.] The Arbitration Act does
2176
[2024] 11 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
not prohibit PSUs from empanelling potential arbitrators - However,
an arbitration clause cannot mandate the other party to select its
arbitrator from the panel curated by PSUs. [Para 169(b)]
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Unilateral clause in
the appointment of arbitrators:
Held: [Per Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI for himself and
J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, JJ.] A clause that allows one
party to unilaterally appoint a sole arbitrator gives rise to justifiable
doubts as to the independence and impartiality of the arbitrator -
Further, such a unilateral clause is exclusive and hinders equal
participation of the other party in the appointment process of
arbitrators. [Para 169(c)]
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Mandating the other
party to select its arbitrator from a curated panel of potential
arbitrators is against the principle of equal treatment of parties:
Held: [Per Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI for himself and
J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, JJ.] In the appointment of
a three-member panel, mandating the other party to select its
arbitrator from a curated panel of potential arbitrators is against the
principle of equal treatment of parties - In this situation, there is no
effective counterbalance because parties do not participate equally
in the process of appointing arbitrators - The process of appointing
arbitrators in Central Organisation for Railway Electrification v.
ECI-SPIC-SMOMCML (JV) A Joint Venture Company [2019] 16
SCR 1234 is unequal and prejudiced in favour of the Railways.
[Para 169(d)]
Constitution of India - Art. 14 - Arbitration and Conciliation
Act, 1996 - Whether unilateral appointment clauses in
public-private contracts are violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution:
Held: [Per Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI for himself and
J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, JJ.] Unilateral appointment
clauses in public-private contracts are violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution. [Para 169(e)]
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Arbitration and
Conciliation (Amendment) Act 2015 - s. 12(5) - Application of
s.12(5) where the parties seek to waive the allegation of bias
against an arbitrator appointed unilaterally by one of the parties:
[2024] 11 S.C.R.
2177
Central Organisation for Railway Electrification v.
M/s ECI SPIC SMO MCML (JV) A Joint Venture Company
Held: [Per Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI for himself and
J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, JJ.] The principle of express
waiver contained under the proviso to Section 12(5) also applies
to situations where the parties seek to waive the allegation of bias
against an arbitrator appointed unilaterally by one of the parties -
After the disputes have arisen, the parties can determine whether
there is a necessity to waive the nemo judex rule. [Para 169(f)]
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - The present judgment
applies prospectively and to three-member tribunals:
Held: [Per Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI for himself and
J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, JJ.] The law laid down in the
present reference will apply prospectively to arbitrator appointments
to be made after the date of this judgment - This direction applies
to three-member tribunals. [Para 169(g)]
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Two independent yet
interdependent principles:
Held: [Per Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, J.] Dispute
resolution through arbitration encompasses two independent yet
interdependent principles: contractual freedom as party autonomy
and statutory obligation as duty to constitute an independent arbitral
tribunal. [Para 56(I)]
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Arbitration agreement -
Party Autonomy:
Held: [Per Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, J.] Party autonomy
in making of an arbitration agreement is an essential feature of
arbitration - It commences with choosing the members of the
arbitral tribunal, extends to the procedure that would apply for
its conduct, and concludes with the method by which an award
could be challenged before a court - It is thus a brooding and
guiding spirit of arbitration - Party autonomy is sufficiently
incorporated in the Arbitration Act, along with a restraint on
judicial intervention. [Para 56(II)]
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Contract Act, 1872 -
s.23 - Statutory incorporation of duties of the parties to the
arbitration agreement:
Held: [Per Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, J.] The moment
parties choose arbitration over ordinary civil proceedings for dispute
2178
[2024] 11 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
resolution, their duty to establish an independent and impartial
tribunal arises - The substitution of arbitration in place of civil courts
as an exception under Section 28 of the Contract Act is only for a
forum and not for contracting out of the most essential feature of a
dispute resolution, i.e., independence and impartiality must exist in
every forum - This essential feature is the inviolable public policy
consideration under Section 23 of the Contract Act from which
the parties cannot opt out - Arbitration agreements which are not
compliant of this public policy consideration are void under Section
23 of the Contract Act - Thus, there is a statutory incorporation
of duties of the parties to the arbitration agreement. [Para 56(III)]
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - When an arbitration
agreement is not enabling constitution of an independent and
impartial tribunal:
Held: [Per Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, J.] If an arbitration
agreement is considered by the court as not enabling constitution
of an independent and impartial tribunal, any submission that the
said agreement is a binding contract, or it is in exercise of party
autonomy is not tenable as such an agreement will be against
public policy and as such not an enforceable contract. [Para 56(IV)]
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Contract Act, 1872 -
Statutory incorporation of duties - Necessity to apply public
law principles:
Held: [Per Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, J.] In view of the
statutory incorporation of these duties, it is not necessary to apply
public law principles evolved in constitutional and administrative
laws - Sourcing these duty obligations from Contract Act and
Arbitration Act is important to maintain the integrity of the party
autonomy and restraint of judicial institutions. [Para 56(V)]
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Duty of the Court:
Held: [Per Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, J.] The power to
ensure that the arbitration agreement is compliant of the public policy
requirement of establishing an independent and impartial tribunal
is always of the Court - This principle is recognised and statutorily
incorporated in the Contract Act and the Arbitration Act - It is the
duty of the court to ensure that the arbitration agreement inspires
confidence and it will enable establishment of an independent and
impartial arbitral tribunal. [Para 56(VI)]
[2024] 11 S.C.R.
2179
Central Organisation for Railway Electrification v.
M/s ECI SPIC SMO MCML (JV) A Joint Venture Company
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Maintaining a panel
of arbitrators:
Held: [Per Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, J.] Neither public policy
considerations under the Contract Act or the Arbitration Act restrain
the parties to the arbitration from maintaining a panel of arbitrators
in any manner - However, arbitration agreements enabling one of
the parties to unilaterally constitute arbitral tribunal do not inspire
confidence of independence and may violate the public policy
requirement of constituting an independent and impartial tribunal -
The court will, therefore, scrutinise the agreement and hold them
to be invalid if it considers it appropriate. [Para 56(VII)]
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - No two agreements
are the same and it is necessary for the court to examine the
text and context of the agreement:
Held: [Per Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, J.] The occasion
for the court to examine the constitution of the independent and
impartial tribunal under the arbitration clause will arise when one
of the parties makes an application under Sections 11, 14 or 34 -
It is not permissible for the court to give an advance declaration
that all such agreements which enable one of the parties to
unilaterally constitute the arbitral tribunal would be void per se -
No two agreements are the same and it is necessary for the court
to examine the text and context of the agreement. [Para 56(VIII)]
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Test of establishment
of an independent and impartial tribunal:
Held: [Per Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, J.] All applications
pending before the courts challenging the unilateral appointment
clauses will be disposed of applying the test as to whether such
a clause enables establishment of an independent and impartial
tribunal. [Para 56(IX)]
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - s.18 - Applicability of:
Held: [Per Hrishikesh Roy, J.] Section 18 applies to all stages of
arbitration including the stage of appointment of an arbitrator - The
Arbitration Act does not provide for any special treatment to the
government irrespective of whether the arbitration is by or against
the government. [Para 43(a)]
2180
[2024] 11 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Unilateral appointment
of Arbitrators is permissible as per the legislative scheme:
Held: [Per Hrishikesh Roy, J.] Unilateral appointment of Arbitrators
is permissible as per the legislative scheme of the Arbitration
Act - There is a distinction between 'ineligibility' and 'unilateral'
appointment of arbitrators - As long as an arbitrator nominated
by a party is eligible under the Seventh Schedule of the Act, the
appointment (unilateral or otherwise), should permissible - It is only
in cases of a complete lack of consensus that the court should
exercise its power under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act to
appoint an independent and impartial arbitrator as per Section
11(8) read with Section 12 and 18 of the Arbitration Act - At the
appointment stage, the scope of judicial intervention is otherwise
extremely narrow. [Para 43(b)]
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Independence and
impartiality of the arbitrator - Examination of:
Held: [Per Hrishikesh Roy, J.] The independence and impartiality
of the arbitrator must be examined within the statutory framework
of the Arbitration Act, particularly Section 18 read with section
12(5) - Public Law constitutional principles should not be imported
to arbitration proceedings particularly at the threshold stage of
Section 11. [Para 43(c)]
Case Law Cited
In the Judgment of Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI, J.B.
Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, JJ.
Jaswant Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Lakshmi Chand [1963] Supp. 1 SCR
242 : 1962 SCC OnLine SC 20; Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel
[1985] Supp. (2) SCR 131 : (1985) 3 SCC 398; In re Interplay
Between Arbitration Agreements under Arbitration and Conciliation
Act 1996 and the Stamp Act 1899, [2023] 15 SCR 1081 : 2023
INSC 1066; Mineral Area Development Authority v. Steel Authority
of India [2024] 8 SCR 540 : 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1974; Bharat
Aluminium Company v. Kaiser Aluminium Technical Services [2016]
1 SCR 364 : (2012) 9 SCC 552 - followed.
Pam Developments Private Limited v. State of West Bengal [2019]
9 SCR 252 : (2019) 8 SCC 112; Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Raja
Transport (P) Ltd. [2009] 13 SCR 510 : (2009) 3 SCC (Civ) 460;
[2024] 11 S.C.R.
2181
Central Organisation for Railway Electrification v.
M/s ECI SPIC SMO MCML (JV) A Joint Venture Company
Madhyamam Broadcasting Limited v. Union of India [2023] 10 SCR
595 : 2023 SCC OnLine SC 366; P D Dinakaran v. Judges Inquiry
Committee [2011] 10 SCR 1064 : (2011) 8 SCC 380; Supreme
Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India [2015] 13
SCR 1 : (2016) 5 SCC 808; HRD Corporation v. GAIL (India) [2017]
11 SCR 857 : (2018) 12 SCC 471; Delhi Transport Corporation v.
DTC Mazdoor Congress [1990] Supp. 1 SCR 142 : (1991) Supp.
1 SCC 600; Central Inland Water Transport Corporation v. Brojo
Nath Ganguly [1986] 2 SCR 278 : (1986) 3 SCC 156 - relied on.
Voestalpine Schienen GmbH v. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd
[2017] 1 SCR 798; TRF Ltd v. Energo Engineering Projects Ltd
[2017] 7 SCR 409; Pratapchand Nopaji v. Kotrike Venkata Setty
[1975] 3 SCR 1 : (1975) 2 SCC 208; Perkins Eastman Architects
DPC v. HSCC (India) Ltd. [2019] 17 SCR 275; Central Organisation
for Railway Electrification v. ECI-SPIC-SMOMCML (JV) A Joint
Venture Company [2019] 16 SCR 1234; Union of India v. Tantia
Constructions Limited, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 271; Lombardi
Engineering Limited v. Uttarakhand Jal Vidyut Nigam Limited [2023]
13 SCR 943 : (2024) 4 SCC 341; Cox and Kings Ltd v. SAP India
Pvt Ltd, 2023 INSC 1051 : [2023] 15 SCR 621; Bharat Aluminium
Co. v. Kaiser Aluminium Technical Services Inc. [2016] 1 SCR 364 :
(2016) 4 SCC 126; Centrotrade Minerals & Metals Inc v. Hindustan
Copper Ltd. [2016] 9 SCR 83 : (2017) 2 SCC 228; N S Nayak and
Sons v. State of Goa [2003] Supp. (1) SCR 69 : (2003) 6 SCC 56;
Kamatchi Amman Constructions v. Railways [2010] 10 SCR 487 :
(2010) 8 SCC 767; Shree Subhlaxmi Fabrics (P) Ltd. v. Chand
Mal Baradia [2005] 2 SCR 1138 : (2005) 10 SCC 704; BSNL v.
Motorola India (P) Ltd. (2009) 2 SCC 337; State of UP v. Babu
Ram Upadhya [1961] 2 SCR 679; Raza Buland Sugar Co. Ltd. v.
Municipal Board [1965] 1 SCR 970 : 1964 SCC OnLine SC 119;
Datar Switchgears Ltd. v. Tata Finance Ltd. (2000) 8 SCC 151;
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Raja Transport (P) Ltd. [2009] 13
SCR 510 : (2009) 8 SCC 520; Denel (Proprietary) Ltd. v. Bharat
Electronics Ltd. [2010] 6 SCR 784 : (2010) 6 SCC 394; Bipromasz
Birpron Trading Sa v. Bharat Electronics Ltd. [2012] 5 SCR 743 :
(2012) 6 SCC 384; Union of India v. Singh Builders Syndicate
[2009] 3 SCR 563 : (2009) 4 SCC 523; North Eastern Railway v.
Tripple Engg. Works [2014] 6 SCR 1143 : (2014) 9 SCC 288; Bharat
Broadband Network Ltd. v. United Telecoms Ltd. [2019] 6 SCR
97 : (2019) 5 SCC 755; K K Saksena v. International Commission
on Irrigation & Drainage [2014] 14 SCR 892 : (2015) 4 SCC 670;
2182
[2024] 11 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Subodh Kumar Singh Rathour v. Chief Executive Officer [2024] 7
SCR 532 : 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1682; Province of Bombay v.
Khushaldas Advani [1950] 1 SCR 621 : (1950) SCC 551; Airports
Economic Regulatory Authority of India v. Delhi International
Airport Limited 2024 INSC 792 : [2024] 10 SCR 1404; ONGC
Ltd. v. Afcons Gunanusa JV [2022] 10 SCR 660 : (2024) 4 SCC
481; Srei Infrastructure Finance Ltd. v. Tuff Drilling Private Limited
[2017] 12 SCR 933 : (2018) 11 SCC 470; Engineering Mazdoor
Sabha v. Hind Cycles Ltd. [1963] Supp. 1 SCR 625 : 1962 SCC
OnLine SC 134; Dewan Singh v. Champat Singh [1970] 2 SCR
903 : (1969) 3 SCC 447; Grindlays Bank Ltd. v. Central Govt.
Industrial Tribunal [1981] 2 SCR 341 : (1980) Supp. SCC 420;
Siemens Engg. & Mfg. Co. of India Ltd. v. Union of India [1976]
Supp. 1 SCR 489 : (1976) 2 SCC 981; Associate Builders v. DDA
[2014] 13 SCR 895 : (2015) 3 SCC 49; M Nagaraj v. Union of India
[2006] Supp. 7 SCR 336 : (2006) 8 SCC 212; Shree Meenakshi
Mills Ltd. v. A V Visvanatha Sastri Shree Meenakshi Mills Ltd. v.
A V Visvanatha Sastri (1955) SCR 787 : (1954) 2 SCC 497; Union
of India v. Madras Bar Association [2010] 6 SCR 857 : (2010) 11
SCC 1; Chennai Metro Rail Ltd. v. Transtonnelstroy Afcons (JV)
[2023] 14 SCR 995 : (2024) 6 SCC 211; Express Newspaper (P)
Ltd. v. Union of India, [1959] 1 SCR 12 : 1958 SCC OnLine SC
23; A K Kraipak v. Union of India [1970] 1 SCR 457 : (1969) 2 SCC
262; Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner [1978]
2 SCR 272 : (1978) 1 SCC 405; Swadeshi Cotton Mills v. Union
of India [1981] 2 SCR 533 : (1981) 1 SCC 664; State of Orissa v.
Binapani Dei [1967] 2 SCR 625 : 1967 SCC OnLine SC 15; Union
of India v. K P Joseph [1973] 2 SCR 752 : (1973) 1 SCC 194; J
Mohapatra & Co. v. State of Orissa [1985] 1 SCR 322 : (1984) 4
SCC 103; A K Roy v. Union of India [1982] 2 SCR 272 : (1982)
1 SCC 271; Government of TN v. Munuswamy Mudaliar [1988]
Supp. 2 SCR 673 : (1988) Supp. SCC 651; Basheshar Nath v.
CIT [1959] Supp. 1 SCR 528 : 1958 SCC OnLine SC 7; In Re
Special Courts Bill, 1978 [1979] 2 SCR 476 : (1979) 1 SCC 380;
State of Andhra Pradesh v. Nalla Raja Reddy [1967] 3 SCR 28 :
1967 SCC OnLine SC 85; E P Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu
[1974] 2 SCR 348 : (1974) 4 SCC 3; Maneka Gandhi v. Union of
India [1978] 2 SCR 621 : (1978) 1 SCC 248; Satyavir Singh v.
Union of India [1985] Supp. 2 SCR 791 : (1958) 4 SCC 252;
Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi [1981] 2 SCR 79 : (1981)
1 SCC 722; K L Tripathi v. State Bank of India [1984] 1 SCR
[2024] 11 S.C.R.
2183
Central Organisation for Railway Electrification v.
M/s ECI SPIC SMO MCML (JV) A Joint Venture Company
184 : (1984) 1 SCC 43; Bank of Patiala v. S K Sharma [1996] 3
SCR 972 : (1996) 3 SCC 364; S L Kapoor v. Jagmohan [1981] 1
SCR 746 : (1980) 4 SCC 379; Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. v. CCE
[2015] 6 SCR 437 : (2015) 8 SCC 519; Ashok Kumar Yadav v.
State of Haryana [1985] Supp. 1 SCR 657 : (1985) 4 SCC 417;
Gullapalli Nageswara Rao v. State of A P, [1960] 1 SCR 580 :
1959 SCC OnLine SC 53; Mineral Development Ltd. v. State of
Bihar, [1960] 2 SCR 609 :1959 SCC OnLine SC 49; Gullapalli
Nageswara Rao v. A P State Road Transport Corporation [1959]
Supp. 1 SCR 319 : 1958 SCC OnLine SC 49; Manak Lal v. Dr.
Prem Chand Sighvi [1957] 1 SCR 575 : 1957 SCC OnLine SC
10; G Sarana v. University of Lucknow [1977] 1 SCR 64 : (1976)
3 SCC 585; Union of India v. B N Jha [2003] 2 SCR 721 : (2003)
4 SCC 531; S Parthasarathi v. State of AP [1974] 1 SCR 697 :
(1974) 3 SCC 459; Kumaon Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd. v. Girja
Shankar Pant [2000] Supp. (4) SCR 248 : (2001) 1 SCC 182;
M P Special Police Establishment v. State of M P [2004] Supp. 5
SCR 1020 : (2004) 8 SCC 788; Government of Haryana v. GF Toll
Road Private Ltd [2019] 1 SCR 270 : (2019) 3 SCC 505; State of
Punjab v. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar [2011] 15 SCR 540 : (2011)
14 SCC 770; Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of India [1989] Supp.
2 SCR 597 : (1990) 1 SCC 613; Glock Asia-Pacific Limited v.
Union of India [2023] 6 SCR 717 : (2023) 8 SCC 226; Gherulal
Parakh v. Mahadeodas Maiya [1959] Supp. 2 SCR 406 : 1959
SCC OnLine SC 4; Murlidhar Aggarwal v. State of UP [1975] 1
SCR 575 : (1974) 2 SCC 472; Indian Bank v. Blue Jaggers Estates
Ltd. (2010) 8 SCC 129; ICOMM Tele Ltd. v. Punjab State Water
Supply and Sewerage Board [2019] 2 SCR 984 : (2019) 4 SCC
401; Food Corporation of India v. Kamdhenu Cattle Feed Industries
[1992] Supp. 2 SCR 322 : (1993) 1 SCC 71; Tata Cellular v. Union
of India [1994] Supp. 2 SCR 122 : (1994) 6 SCC 651; Mahabir
Auto Stores v. Indian Oil Corporation [1990] 1 SCR 818 : (1990)
3 SCC 752; Air India Ltd. v. Cochin International Airport Ltd.
[2000] 1 SCR 505 : (2000) 2 SCC 617; Booz Allen & Hamilton
Inc. v. SBI Home Finance Ltd. [2011] 7 SCR 310 : (2011) 5 SCC
532; A Ayyasamy v. A Paramasivam [2016] 11 SCR 521 : (2016)
10 SCC 386; Ssangyong Engg. & Construction Co. Ltd. v. NHAI
[2019] 7 SCR 522 : (2019) 15 SCC 131; NHAI v. P Nagaraju
[2022] 8 SCR 1070 : (2022) 15 SCC 1; MMTC v. Vedanta Ltd.
[2019] 3 SCR 1023 : (2019) 4 SCC 163; Avitel Post Studioz Ltd. v.
HSBC PI Holdings (Mauritius) Ltd. [2024] 3 SCR 971 : (2024) 7
2184
[2024] 11 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
SCC 197; Vidya Drolia v. Durga Trading Corporation [2020] 11
SCR 1001 : (2021) 2 SCC 1; Eurasian Equipment & Chemicals
Ltd. v. State of West Bengal [1975] 2 SCR 674 : (1975) 1 SCC
70; Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of
India [1979] 3 SCR 1014 : (1979) 3 SCC 489; LIC v. Consumer
Education & Research Centre [1995] Supp. 1 SCR 349 : (1995)
5 SCC 482; Somaiya Organics (India) Ltd. v. State of UP [2001]
3 SCR 33 : (2001) 5 SCC 519; Belsund Sugar Co. Ltd. v. State
of Bihar [1999] Supp. 1 SCR 146 : (1999) 9 SCC 620; Sarwan
Kumar v. Madan Lal Aggarwal [2003] 1 SCR 918 : (2003) 4 SCC
147; Bhatia International v. Bulk Trading S A [2002] 2 SCR 411 :
(2002) 4 SCC 105 - referred to.
R v. Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, ex parte
Pinochet Ugarte (No. 2) [1999] UKHL 1; Dimes v. The Proprietors
of the Grand Junction Canal (1852) 3 HLC 759; Locabail (UK)
Ltd. v. Bayfield Properties Ltd [1999] EWCA Civ 3004; Dimes v.
Grand Junction Canal (1852) 3 HL Cas 759; R v. Sussex Justices
[1924] 1 KB 256; R v. Barnsley Licencing Justices (1960) 2 Q.B.
187; Metropolitan Properties Company v. Lannon [1968] EWCA
Civ 5; Regina v. Gough [1993] UKHL 1; Webb v. The Queen,
(1994) 181 CLR 41; re Medicaments and Related Classes of
Goods (No. 2) [2001] 1 WLR 700; Porter v. Magill [2002] 2 AC
357; Lawal v. Northern Spirit Limited [2003] UKHL 25; Helow v.
Secretary of State [2008] UKHL 62; Johnson v Johnson (2000)
201 CLR 488; Haliburton Company v. Chubb Bermuda Insurance
Ltd. [2020] UKSC 48; Perry v. Thomas 482 US 483; Doctor's
Associates Inc v. Casarotto 517 US 681; Hume v. United States 132
US 406; Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture Co. 350 F.2d 445;
Hooters of Am. Inc. v. Phillips 173 F.3d 933; Board of Education
of Berkely County v. W Harley Miller Inc 236 S.E.2d 439; Ditto v.
Remax Preferred Props 861 P.2d 1000, 1004; Harold Allen's Mobile
Home Factory Outlet Inc v. Butler 825 So.2d 779, 783; Graham v.
Scissor Tail Inc 28 Cal 3d 807; Rosenberg v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce,
Fenner & Smith Inc 995 F.Supp 190, 208; McMullen v. Meijer 355
F.3d 485, 493; K/S Norjarl A/S v. Hyundai Heavy Industries Co.
Ltd. [1992] QB 863; The King v. Sussex Justices [1924] 1 KB 256;
Nicholas v. Cyprus Application No. 63246/10; Morice v. France,
Application No. 29369/10; Micallef v. Malta Application No.
17056/06; Koulis v. Cyprus, Application No. 48781/12; Jivraj v.
Hashwani [2011] UKSC 40; Janson v. Driefontein Consolidated
Mines, Limited [1902] 2 AC 484; - referred to.
[2024] 11 S.C.R.
2185
Central Organisation for Railway Electrification v.
M/s ECI SPIC SMO MCML (JV) A Joint Venture Company
In the Judgment of Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, J.
Vidya Drolia v. Durga Trading Corporation [2020] 11 SCR 1001 :
(2021) 2 SCC 1; M/s Arif Azim Co. Ltd. v. M/s Aptech Ltd. [2024]
3 SCR 73 : (2024) 5 SCC 313; SBI General Insurance Co Ltd v.
Krish Spinning [2024] 7 SCR 840 : 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1754;
Centrotrade Minerals & Metals Inc v. Hindustan Copper Ltd. [2006]
Supp. 2 SCR 146 : (2006) 11 SCC 245; Union of India v. Uttar
Pradesh Bridge Corporation Limited (2015) 2 SCC 52; Bharat
Aluminium Co. v. Kaiser Aluminium Technical Services Inc. [2016] 1
SCR 364 : (2016) 4 SCC 126; Cox and Kings v. SAP India Pvt Ltd
[2023] 15 SCR 621 : (2024) 4 SCC 1; Indian Financial Association
of Seventh Day Adventists v. M.A. Unneerikutty [2006] Supp. 3
SCR 762 : (2006) 6 SCC 351; Gherulal Parekh v. Mahadeodas
Maiya (1959) Supp 2 SCR 406; Central Inland Water Transport
Corpn Ltd v. Brojo Nath Ganguly [1986] 2 SCR 278 : (1986) 3
SCC 156; Rattan Chand Hira Chand v. Askar Nawaz Jung [1991]
1 SCR 327 : (1991) 3 SCC 67; Assistant General Manager v.
Radhey Shyam Pandey [2020] 4 SCR 814 : (2020) 6 SCC 438;
P. Rathinam v. Union of India [1994] 3 SCR 673 : (1994) 3 SCC
394; Central Inland Water Transport v. Brojo Nath Ganguly [1986]
2 SCR 278 : (1986) 3 SCC 156; S.K. Jain v. State of Haryana
[2009] 2 SCR 1080 : (2009) 4 SCC 357; ICOMM Tele Limited v.
Punjab State Water Supply and Sewerage Board [2019] 2 SCR
984 : (2019) 4 SCC 401; HRD Corporation (Marcus Oil and
Chemical Division) v. GAIL (India) Ltd. [2017] 11 SCR 857 : (2018)
12 SCC 471; Chennai Metro Rail Ltd v. Transtonnelstroy Afcons
(JV) [2023] 14 SCR 995 : (2024) 6 SCC 211; Bharat Broadband
Network Limited v. United Telecoms Limited [2019] 6 SCR 97 :
(2019) 5 SCC 755; Indian Oil Corporation v. Raja Transport Pvt Ltd
[2009] 13 SCR 510 : (2009) 8 SCC 520; North Eastern Railway v.
Tripple Engineering Works [2014] 6 SCR 1143 : (2014) 9 SCC 288;
Northern Railway Administration, Ministry of Railway, New Delhi v.
Patel Engineering Company [2008] 12 SCR 216 : (2008) 10 SCC
240; Ace Pipeline Contracts (P) Ltd. v. Bharat Petroleum Corpn.
Ltd. [2007] 4 SCR 777 : (2007) 5 SCC 304; Denel (Proprietary)
Limited v. Bharat Electronics Limited [2010] 6 SCR 784 : (2010)
6 SCC 394; Bipromasz Bipron Trading SA v. Bharat Electronics
Ltd. [2012] 5 SCR 743 : (2012) 6 SCC 384; Denel (Proprietary)
Limited v. Ministry of Defence [2012] 2 SCR 897 : (2012) 2 SCC
2186
[2024] 11 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
759; Delhi Transport Corporation v. DTC Mazdoor Congress [1990]
Supp. 1 SCR 142 : (1991) Supp. 1 SCC 600; Bidi Supply Co v.
Union of India [1956] 1 SCR 267; Haryana Space Application
Centre v. Pan India Consultants Private Limited [2021] 1 SCR
282 : (2021) 3 SCC 103; Voestalpine Schienen GMBH v. Delhi
Metro Rail Corporation [2017] 1 SCR 798 : (2017) 4 SCC 665;
TRF Limited v. Energo Engineering Projects Limited [2017] 7 SCR
409 : (2017) 8 SCC 377; Perkins Eastman Architects DPC v. HSCC
(India) Limited [2019] 17 SCR 275 : (2020) 20 SCC 760; Central
Organisation for Railway Electrification v. ECI-SPIC-SMO-MCML
(JV) [2019] 16 SCR 1234 : (2020) 14 SCC 712; Union of India v.
Parmar Construction Company [2019] 5 SCR 1009 : (2019) 15
SCC 682; Union of India v. Pradeep Vinod Construction Co [2019]
17 SCR 64 : (2020) 2 SCC 464; Govt. of Haryana PWD Haryana
(B and R) Branch v. G.F. Toll Road (P) Ltd [2019] 1 SCR 270 :
(2019) 3 SCC 505; Glock Asia-Pacific Limited v. Union of India
[2023] 6 SCR 717 : (2023) 8 SCC 226; Lombardi Engineering
Limited v. Uttarakhand Jal Vidyut Nigam Limited [2023] 13 SCR
943 : (2024) 4 SCC 341; Jaipur Zila Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari
Sangh v. Ajay Sales & Suppliers [2021] 7 SCR 768 : (2021) 17
SCC 248; Ellora Paper Mills v. State of M.P [2022] 16 SCR 399 :
(2022) 3 SCC 1 - referred to.
Perry v. Thomas 482 US 483 (1987); Harold Allen's Mobile Home
Factory Outlet, Inc. v. Butler 825 So.2d 779,783-85 (Ala. 2002);
Philipp Bros. v. Icco 1990 Rev. 880,883; Raffineries de Petrole
d'Homs et de Banias v. Chambre de Commerce Internationale
1985 Recv. Arb. 141,146; Rosenberg v. Merril Lynch, Pierce,
Fennner & Smith Inc. 995 F.Supp. 190,208; Harold Allen's Mobile
Home Factory Outlet, Inc. v. Butler 825 So.2d 779,783-85 (Ala.
2002); Hooters of America, Inc. v. Phillips 39 F. Supp. 2d 582
(D.S.C. 1998); Murray v. United Food and Commercial Workers
Union 289 F.3d 297 (4th Cir.2002); McMullen v. Meijer, Inc 355
F.3d 485 (6th Cir. 2004); Board of Ed. v. W. Harley Miller, Inc.
160 W. Va. 473, 236 S.E.2d 439 (W. Va. 1977); Sumukan Ltd. v.
Commonwealth Secretariat [2007] EWCA 1148; Swiss Federal
Tribunal (Judgement of 26 November 2002, DFT 4P_129/2002);
Court of Cassation (France) (Judgment of 31 January, 2002, 2003:2
Cahiers de l'Arbitrage 303); Judgement of 11 November 1981, DFT
107 Ia 155,158 (Swiss Fed. Trib.) - referred to.
[2024] 11 S.C.R.
2187
Central Organisation for Railway Electrification v.
M/s ECI SPIC SMO MCML (JV) A Joint Venture Company
In the Judgment of Hrishikesh Roy, J.
Interplay Between Arbitration Agreements under A&C Act, 1996 &
Stamp Act, 1899 [2023] 15 SCR 1081 : (2024) 6 SCC 1 - followed.
A.Ayyasamy vs A. Paramasivam [2016] 11 SCR 521 : (2016) 10
SCC 386 - relied on.
Mayavati Trading (P) Ltd. v. Pradyuat Deb Burman [2019] 12 SCR
123 : (2019) 8 SCC 714; Duro Felguera, S.A. v. Gangavaram Port
Ltd [2017] 10 SCR 285 : (2017) 9 SCC 729; SBP & Co. v Patel
Engineering [2005] Supp. 4 SCR 688 : (2005) 8 SCC 618; National
Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Boghara Polyfab (P) Ltd [2008] 13 SCR
638 : (2009) 1 SCC 267; Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division,
Puri v. Gangaram Chhapolia [1984] 3 SCC 627; Secretary to
Government Transport Department, Madras v. Munusamy Mudaliar
[1988] Supp. (2) SCR 673 : [1988] Supp. SCC 651; International
Authority of India v. K.D. Bali and Anr [1988] 3 SCR 370 : [1988] 2
SCC 360; HRD Corporation (Marcus Oil and Chemical Division) v.
GAIL (India) Ltd. [2017] 11 SCR 857 : (2018) 12 SCC 471;
Voestalpine Schienen GmbH v. Delhi Metro Rail Corpn. Ltd [2017]
1 SCR 798 : (2017) 4 SCC 665; TRF Ltd. v. Energo Engg. Projects
Ltd [2017] 7 SCR 409 : (2017) 8 SCC 377; Perkins Eastman
Architects DPC v. HSCC (India) Ltd [2019] 17 SCR 275 : (2020)
20 SCC 760; Central Organisation for Railway Electrification v.
ECI-SPIC-SMO-MCML (JV) [2019] 16 SCR 1234 : (2020) 14 SCC
712; Union of India Vs. Parmar Construction Company [2019]
5 SCR 1009 : (2019) 15 SCC 682; Union of India vs. Pradeep
Vinod Construction Company [2019] 17 SCR 64 : (2020) 2 SCC
464 - referred to.
Books and Periodicals Cited
In the Judgment of Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI, J.B.
Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, JJ.
Law Commission of India, Amendments to the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act 1996, Report No. 246 (August 2014); Emmanuel
Gaillard, Legal Theory of International Arbitration' (Brill, 2010);
Peter Binder, International Commercial Arbitration and Conciliation
in UNCITRAL Model Law Jurisdiction (2nd edn, 2005); Howard
Holtzmann and Joseph Neuhaus, A Guide to the UNCITRAL
Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (Kluwer Law);
2188
[2024] 11 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
UNCITRAL, 2012 Digest of Case Law on the Model Law on
International Commercial Arbitration (2012); Fouchard, Gaillard
and Goldman on International Commercial Arbitration (Emmanuel
Gaillard and John Savage, eds. 1999); Koulis v. Cyprus, Application
No. 48781/12; Shahla Ali and Odysseas G Repousis, 'Appointment
of Arbitrators' in UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial
Arbitration (Ilian Bantekas, et al eds, 2020); Gary Born, International
Commercial Arbitration (3rd edn.,) 1783; Michael Pryles, 'Limits
to Party Autonomy in Arbitral Procedure' (2007) 24(3) Journal of
International Arbitration 327-339; Jody Freeman, 'The Contracting
State' (2000) 28(1) Florida State University Law Review 155; Stavros
Brekoulakis and Margaret Devaney, 'Public-private arbitration and
the public interest under English law' (2017 Somaiya Organics
(India) Ltd. v. State of UP, (2001) 5 SCC 519) 80(1) Modern Law
Review 22, 30; Ilias Bantekas; Fouchard Gaillard Goldman on
International Commercial Arbitration (Kluwer Law International,
1999); Jerry L Mashaw; William B Rubenstein; William Wade and
Janson v. Driefontein Consolidated Mines, Limited, [1902] 2 AC
484 Christopher Forsyth, Administrative Law (12th edn, Oxford
University Press); David Caron and Lee Caplan, The UNCITRAL
Arbitration Rules: A Commentary (2nd edn, Oxford University Press,
2013); Fali Nariman, 'Standards of Behaviour of Arbitrators' (1988)
4(4) Arbitration International; S M Waddams, 'Unconscionability
in Contracts' (1976) 39(4) Modern Law Review 369; John A
Spanogle, 'Analyzing Unconscionability Problems' (1969) 117(7)
University of Pennsylvania Law Review 931; Percy H Winfield,
'Public Policy in the English Common Law' (1928) 42(1) Harvard
Law Review 76, 92; Stephen Waddams, Principle and Policy in
Contract Law (Cambridge University Press, 2011); Arthur Allen Leff,
'Unconscionability and the Code-Emperor's New Clause' (1967)
115(4) University of Pennsylvania Law Review 485.
In the Judgment of Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, J.
Pollock and Mulla, The Indian Contract and Specific Relief Acts,
vol 1 (14th edn, Lexis Nexis 2013), 524; Convention on the
Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, 1958;
Geneva Protocol on Arbitration Clauses; German Code of Civil
Procedure; Estonian Code of Civil Procedure.
In the Judgment of Hrishikesh Roy, J.
Gary Born, International Commercial Arbitration (2nd edn, Kluwer
2014); UNCITRAL 2012 Digest of Case Law on the Model Law on
[2024] 11 S.C.R.
2189
Central Organisation for Railway Electrification v.
M/s ECI SPIC SMO MCML (JV) A Joint Venture Company
International Commercial Arbitration; Howard M. Holtzmann and
Joseph E.