Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Airport Authority of India, filed a petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking appointment of an arbitrator for a dispute regarding interest on a counter-claim. The respondent, Lite Bite Foods Private Limited, opposed the petition on the ground that the same Concession Agreement dated July 9, 2018 had already been the subject of earlier arbitration proceedings which culminated in an Arbitral Award dated July 15, 2022. In those proceedings, the respondent was the claimant and the petitioner was the respondent who had filed a counter-claim but did not raise any claim for interest. The court examined the record and found that the petitioner's claim for interest was incidental to the matters already adjudicated and could have been raised in the earlier proceedings. The court held that the petition was barred by res judicata and constructive res judicata, and dismissed it as an attempt to re-open a matter long ago adjudicated, being a second bite at the cherry.
Headnote
A) Arbitration - Res Judicata - Constructive Res Judicata - Section 11 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - The petitioner sought appointment of an arbitrator for a claim of interest on a counter-claim that was not raised in earlier arbitration proceedings under the same Concession Agreement. The court held that the claim was barred by res judicata and constructive res judicata as it could have been raised in the earlier proceedings. The petition was dismissed as an attempt to re-open adjudicated matters. (Paras 1-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of an arbitrator is maintainable when the dispute regarding interest on a counter-claim could have been raised in earlier arbitration proceedings under the same agreement and is barred by res judicata and constructive res judicata.
Final Decision
The petition is dismissed. The court held that the claim for interest on the counter-claim could have been raised in the earlier arbitration proceedings and is barred by res judicata and constructive res judicata.
Law Points
- Res Judicata
- Constructive Res Judicata
- Arbitration
- Counter-claim
- Interest
- Second bite at the cherry
Case Details
2025 LawText (BOM) (12) 312
Arbitration Petition No. 214 of 2025
Soma Sekhar Sundaresan, J.
Mr. S.D. Kothari for Petitioner (VC), Mr. Rohan Shah a/w. Anirudh Krishna Gandhi, Megha Khandelwal & Rounak Doshi i/b. Saraf & Partners for Respondent (VC)
Airport Authority Of India
Lite Bite Foods Private Limited
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of an arbitrator.
Remedy Sought
Appointment of an arbitrator to adjudicate a claim for interest on a counter-claim.
Filing Reason
The petitioner sought to raise a claim for interest that was not included in its counter-claim in earlier arbitration proceedings under the same Concession Agreement.
Previous Decisions
Earlier arbitration proceedings under the same Concession Agreement culminated in an Arbitral Award dated July 15, 2022.
Issues
Whether the petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is maintainable given the earlier arbitration proceedings and award.
Whether the claim for interest on the counter-claim is barred by res judicata and constructive res judicata.
Submissions/Arguments
The respondent contended that the petition is an attempt to re-open a matter adjudicated long ago and is a second bite at the cherry to re-agitate issues incidental to matters already decided.
The petitioner argued that the claim for interest was not raised in the earlier proceedings and therefore a fresh arbitration is required.
Ratio Decidendi
A claim that could have been raised in earlier arbitration proceedings under the same agreement is barred by res judicata and constructive res judicata, and cannot be the subject of a fresh petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Judgment Excerpts
Having examined the record with the assistance of the parties, and taking the Affidavit-in-Reply dated December 8, 2025 on record, it is apparent that the Concession Agreement dated July 9, 2018, which contains the Arbitration Agreement, had already led to arbitration proceedings earlier, which culminated in an Arbitral Award dated July 15, 2022.
This Petition, it is contended, is an attempt to re-open a matter adjudicated long ago and is a second bite at the cherry to re-agitate issues that are incidental to the matters that have already
Procedural History
The petitioner filed Arbitration Petition No. 214 of 2025 under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The respondent filed an Affidavit-in-Reply dated December 8, 2025. The court heard the parties and dismissed the petition on December 9, 2025.
Acts & Sections
- Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: Section 11
