New Delhi, November 2025 — The Supreme Court of India has once again underscored its commitment to minimizing judicial interference in arbitration, this time in a strong judgment that criticized the Patna High Court for revisiting an order that had already appointed an arbitrator in a commercial dispute. The judgment, delivered by a bench of Justices Pardiwala and Mahadevan, included an incisive remark: “Arbitration is often a friend in conferences but a foe in practice,” highlighting the tension between the theoretical benefits of arbitration and the hurdles it faces when parties resist or manipulate the process in reality.
Case Background: Dispute Between HCC and BRPNNL
The dispute involved Hindustan Construction Company Ltd (HCC) and Bihar Rajya Pul Nirman Nigam Ltd (BRPNNL) regarding a construction contract for a bridge over the River Sone. Initially, in 2014, BRPNNL had awarded HCC the contract, which included an arbitration clause to settle disputes.
When a disagreement arose over claims related to the extended period of the contract, HCC invoked the arbitration clause and approached the Patna High Court in 2020 after BRPNNL failed to appoint an arbitrator. The High Court appointed Justice Shivaji Pandey (retired) as the sole arbitrator, and the proceedings moved forward.
However, after substantial progress—over seventy hearings, pleadings completed, and a mandate extended under Section 29A—the matter took a twist. BRPNNL sought to recall the arbitrator’s appointment, citing a later ruling by the Patna High Court in a separate case (State of Bihar v Kashish Developers). The High Court accepted this argument in December 2024, effectively halting the ongoing arbitration.
Supreme Court’s Stance: No Room for Review After Final Appointment
In a sweeping decision, the Supreme Court overruled the Patna High Court’s intervention. The Court held that once the arbitrator was appointed, the High Court lost jurisdiction over the matter and could not revisit or review its previous order. It emphasized that Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is designed to trigger arbitration, not to create multiple stages of judicial review.
The judgment pointedly criticized the Patna High Court for “undermining the principle of minimal judicial interference” and warned that the review process was being used as an “appeal in disguise,” which is contrary to the spirit of arbitration laws. The Court’s opinion was clear: “Once the appointment was made, the court became functus officio and could not sit in judgment over the very issue it had already settled.”
READ: DHCBA Raises Concerns Over Delhi High Court’s Move to Introduce Working Saturdays
Arbitration’s Role in Reducing Court Backlog
In his opening remarks, Justice Pardiwala highlighted the paradox of arbitration in practice. He remarked that while arbitration is often lauded as a flexible and efficient alternative to court proceedings, it is “frequently resisted by parties once disputes arise.” This, he said, leads to unnecessary judicial interventions, making the process “more cumbersome than civil litigation” in some cases.
The Supreme Court noted that parties often embrace arbitration when the going is good, only to manipulate it when disputes actually arise. This, the Court observed, necessitates judicial intervention, but the objective should be to keep such intervention to a minimum, ensuring that the arbitral process retains its autonomy and efficacy.
Court’s Criticism of BRPNNL’s Conduct
The Supreme Court was also critical of the conduct of BRPNNL and its officials, particularly the Managing Director of the company. While the Court refrained from imposing costs on BRPNNL, it issued a stern warning, stating that the officer’s neglect of his responsibilities could invite personal accountability if such indifference were to recur. “Public officers are custodians of public faith, not mere administrators,” the judgment stressed.
The Court further advised that public officers must reflect on the responsibilities that come with their positions and ensure that neglectful behavior does not continue.
READ: Supreme Court Raises Alarm Over Delay in Uploading Judgments by High Courts
Clarification on Section 11 and Arbitration Procedure
The judgment also provided clarity on the proper procedure to be followed in cases where an originally appointed arbitrator is unable to act. It emphasized that the appropriate legal course would be to invoke Section 15(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act to appoint a substitute arbitrator, without disrupting the ongoing proceedings.
The Court highlighted that BRPNNL’s attempt to revisit the arbitrator’s appointment was improper, and that the arbitral process should continue smoothly despite the objections raised. The Court also reiterated that parties cannot challenge an arbitration clause once they have fully participated in the arbitration proceedings, as had occurred in this case.
Conclusion: A Reminder on the Importance of Judicial Restraint
The Supreme Court’s ruling serves as a powerful reminder of the need for judicial restraint in arbitration matters. By emphasizing the importance of upholding the autonomy of the arbitral process, the Court sought to reaffirm arbitration’s role as an alternative dispute resolution mechanism that should be shielded from unnecessary judicial interference.
The judgment effectively nullified the Patna High Court’s order and directed that a substitute arbitrator be appointed to continue the proceedings, underscoring the principle that judicial intervention in arbitration must be minimal, allowing for an efficient and effective resolution of disputes.
Representing HCC, Senior Advocate Navin Pahwa and his team argued in favor of continuing the arbitration process, while Advocates Manish Kumar, Divyansh Mishra, and Yoshit Jain represented BRPNNL.
As arbitration continues to evolve as a cornerstone of dispute resolution in India, this judgment marks another crucial step towards reducing delays and ensuring that the arbitral process remains efficient and free from unnecessary judicial encumbrances.
READ: Hammurabi & Solomon Advises Elior India on Strategic Majority Stake Acquisition in Platos Foods
