Supreme Court Hears Appeal Against High Court's Quashing of ICADR Arbitral Orders in Private Road Concession Dispute. Core issue involves whether arbitration under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and ICADR Rules can be overridden by the Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983.

Civil appeal against High Court's quashing of ICADR arbitral orders in road concession contract dispute

Appellant sought setting aside of High Court order and restoration of arbitral proceedings

High Court allowed respondent's writ petition and quashed the orders of ICADR and the Arbitral Tribunal

High Court of Madhya Pradesh allowed WP No.14569/2022, quashing ICADR order dated 02.06.2022 and Arbitral Tribunal order dated 07.06.2022

Whether the writ petition before the High Court was maintainable against a private company not being 'State' under Article 12 Whether the arbitration proceedings under the ICADR Rules and the 1996 Act could be sustained in view of the Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 Whether the doctrine of election applies to bar the appellant from pursuing arbitration after having initially filed a reference before the MP Arbitration Tribunal Whether the claims were 'ascertained' within the meaning of the 1983 Act or merely 'ascertainable', affecting jurisdiction

Writ petition not maintainable as appellant is a private company and not an instrumentality of State under Article 12; reliance on S.Shobha v. Muthoot Finance Ltd., Jagmittar Sain Bhagat v. Director, Health Services, Haryana, and Kanwar Singh Saini v. High Court of Delhi. Arbitration commenced under Clause 44.3.1 of the Concession Agreement and ICADR Rules, not as an alternative remedy; parties mutually agreed to resolve disputes via arbitration under the 1996 Act, overriding the 1983 Act. Madhya Pradesh Arbitration Tribunal under the 1983 Act has jurisdiction only over 'ascertained' claims; appellant's claims are at best 'ascertainable' and thus outside its purview; no determination on claim nature was made by High Court or Tribunal. Doctrine of Election has no application as appellant did not voluntarily approach the MP Arbitration Tribunal; arbitration was pursued as the binding contractual remedy, not an alternative. 1996 Act is a self-contained code based on UNCITRAL Model Law; allowing statutory tribunals like the one under the 1983 Act to override would defeat legislative intent.

Ratio not explicitly mentioned

The ICADR has made thorough examination of all the points of the Claimant and Respondent... I, R.K. Rathore, Secretary General of the International Centre for Alternative Dispute Resolution (ICADR), in exercise of the powers vested in me under Rule 5(2) read with Rule 35(3) of ICADR Arbitration Rules, 1996, do hereby appoint the following arbitrator on the behalf of Respondent: Shri Jagdish Prasad Shukla... The above said nominee Arbitrators of the parties by mutual consent have appointed me the Presiding Arbitrator to adjudicate the matter in dispute... I have accepted to act as Presiding Arbitrator in the above referred dispute on 05.06.2022...

Appellant initially filed Reference Case No. 61 of 2018 before Madhya Pradesh Arbitration Tribunal. Subsequently, invoked ICADR arbitration under Concession Agreement; ICADR appointed arbitrators on 02.06.2022. Arbitral Tribunal constituted and issued preliminary hearing notice on 07.06.2022. Respondent No.1 filed WP No.14569/2022 before High Court. Appellant filed withdrawal application before MP Arbitration Tribunal, which was allowed on 08.02.2023. High Court allowed writ petition and quashed impugned orders on 09.09.2024. Appellant challenged by SLP, granted leave by Supreme Court; civil appeal heard, judgment excerpt truncated before conclusion.

• Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: Section 12(1)(b), Section 23(4)
• Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983: Section 7
• Constitution of India, 1950: Article 12
• ICADR Arbitration Rules, 1996: Rule 5(2), Rule 35(3)