1. Concession agreement for road development — Dispute over claims — Invocation of private arbitration under 1996 Act versus statutory reference under Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983. (Para 3 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 1133
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.B. PARDIWALA, R. MAHADEVAN, JJ.
Umri Pooph Pratappur (UPP) Tollways Pvt. Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
M.P. Road Development Corporation and Another - Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 9920 of 2025 [Arising Out of SLP (C) No. 13415 of 2025]
Decided On : 30-07-2025
Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Siddharth Dave, Sr. Adv. Ms. Sadapurna Mukherjee, Adv. Mr. Saurabh Kumar, Adv. Manvi Sharma, Adv. Mr. Rajat Mittal, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General Mr. Siddharth Sharma, AOR Mr. Bhuvan Kapoor, Adv. Ms. Rajeshwari Shankar, Adv. Ms. Ishika Chauhan, Adv.
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Siddharth Dave, Sr. Adv. Ms. Sadapurna Mukherjee, Adv. Mr. Saurabh Kumar, Adv. Manvi Sharma, Adv. Mr. Rajat Mittal, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General Mr. Siddharth Sharma, AOR Mr. Bhuvan Kapoor, Adv. Ms. Rajeshwari Shankar, Adv. Ms. Ishika Chauhan, Adv.
The High Court affirmed the exclusive jurisdiction of the Madhya Pradesh Arbitration Tribunal over disputes arising from a works contract, asserting arbitration clauses cannot override statutory mandates.
Headnote:(A) Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 - Section 2(1)(d) and Section 7 - Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Dispute arising from a works contract - The High Court quashed the orders of the ICADR and the Arbitral Tribunal, affirming that the appellant's claims must be adjudicated by the Madhya Pradesh Arbitration Tribunal as per the statutory provisions - An arbitration clause in a contract cannot override the mandatory provisions of a special act for resolving disputes arising from works contracts when the State or its instrumentalities are involved. (Paras 10, 11, 16, 18)
(B) Judicial Review - Scope - Writ jurisdiction is maintainable against a private party if it discharges a public duty or statutory obligation - The applicant’s claims fall within public law, warranting the High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 226. (Paras 8, 11)
(C) Forum Shopping - The appellant’s attempt to initiate parallel arbitration proceedings under different legal frameworks and withdrawal of earlier claims without permission leads to procedural abuse and is impermissible. (Paras 12, 17)
(D) Limitation - Claims filed years after the disputes arose are barred under both the Madhya Pradesh Act and the Limitation Act. (Paras 16, 18)
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Maintainability of writ against private party — Exclusive jurisdiction of statutory tribunal for works contracts — Validity of contractual arbitration clause versus statutory mandate — Limitation and forum shopping. (Para 4 , 5 )
3. Writ maintainable due to public law element in road development — Concession agreement constitutes works contract — Statutory tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction over such contracts. (Para 8 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 )
4. Statutory forums designated by legislature for specific disputes override private contractual arbitration agreements — Works contracts under 1983 Act fall exclusively within the statutory tribunal's jurisdiction. (Para 11 )
5. Appeal dismissed — Private arbitration quashed — Appellant permitted to seek restoration of reference before the statutory tribunal. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 )
6. When is a writ petition maintainable against a private body not considered 'State' under Article 12?
A writ petition is maintainable if the dispute involves a public law element, the private body performs a public duty, or is subject to a statutory obligation in relation to a State entity. (Para 8 )
7. Does a contractual arbitration clause prevail over the Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 for works contracts?
No. For works contracts involving the State or its instrumentalities, the 1983 Act provides an exclusive statutory mechanism that overrides any private arbitration agreement, regardless of contractual terms. (Para 10 , 11 )
8. What is the legal consequence of withdrawing a reference before the Madhya Pradesh Arbitration Tribunal without seeking liberty to re-file?
Under Rule 53(3)(b) of the Regulations, a party that withdraws a reference without permission is precluded from instituting any fresh reference regarding the same subject matter or part of the claim. (Para 17 )
9. Can a party simultaneously pursue a statutory reference and private arbitration for the same cause of action?
No. Parallel invocation of mutually inconsistent remedies under different legal regimes arising from the same cause of action is impermissible and is barred by the doctrine of election and estoppel. (Para 12 )
JUDGMENT :
R. MAHADEVAN, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal has been preferred against the final judgment and order dated 09.09.2024 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur1 [Hereinafter referred to as “the High Court”] in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 14569 of 2022 filed by Respondent No. 1-Madhya Pradesh Road Development Corporation. By the impugned judgment, the High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the orders dated 02.06.2022 and 07.06.2022 passed by the International Centre for Alternative Dispute Resolution2 [For short “ICADR”] Respondent No. 2 and the Arbitral Tribunal, respectively. For ease of reference, the orders impugned in the writ petition, are extracted below:
Order dated 02.06.2022 passed by the ICADR
“......
The ICADR has made thorough examination of all the points of the Claimant and Respondent including the aforesaid nine attachments with email dated 24.05.2022 and due deliberation and consideration of all the points raised by both the Claimant and Respondent particularly Arbitration Agreement, the judgment in Writ Petition No. 11783/2021 dated 03.09.2021 and Orders sheets of Madhyastham Adhikaran at Bhopal and it has come to the following conclusions:
1. ICADR is the proper forum for the arbitration of disputes arising out of execution of Concession Agreement dated 05.01.2012 between M/s. Umri Pooph Pratappur Tollway Private Limited and Madhya Pradesh Road Development Corporation Ltd. and the same can be ascertained from Arbitration Agreement incorporated in Article 44.3.1 and 44.3.2.
2. The Judgment in Writ Petition N?. 11783/2021 dated 03.09.2021 gives clear finding that ICADR is the proper forum for Arbitration of dispute arising from the Concession agreement dated 05.01.2012.
3. In view of and from the orders sheets of Madhyastham Adhikaran at Bhopal, it is ascertained that the Madhyastham Adhikaran at Bhopal has not entered upon reference of the arbitration and therefore not in seisin of the aforementioned arbitrable disputes.
Therefore, in view of Rule 5(2) of the ICADR ARBITRATION RULES , 1996, inter alia, provides that where a party fails to appoint an arbitrator within 30 days from the receipt of a request to do so from the other party, the appointment shall be made upon request of the party, by ICADR. However, in view of Reply of MPRDCL vide letter No. 2941/83/BOT/MPRDC Bhopal dated 13.05.2022 to Arbitration Notice dated 06.05.2022 of the Claimant whereby the Respondent has declined to nominate their Arbitrator, hence, ICADR need not wait for expiry of 30 days.
Since the Respondent has failed to appoint their arbitrator in terms of clause 44.3.1 of the Agreement, now, therefore, 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, IRSE (Retd.)
Former Principal Engineer/Northern Railway Chief Managing Director/Rail Vikas Nigam Ltd. & Member Administration/Central Administrative Tribunal Add: 501, Ridgewood, Omaxe Forest Sector-92, Noida.
Cell No. 9958998686
E-mail: jpshukla46@gmail.com
The two appointed arbitrators will select the third Arbitrator, i.e. Presiding Arbitrator, as provided in clause 44.3.2 of the above mentioned Agreement.”
Order dated 07.06.2022 passed by the Arbitral Tribunal
“......
Notice for preliminary hearing
(1) The Concessionaire/Claimant has appointed Shri Kamlesh Kumar as Arbitrator on their behalf. The ICADR on behalf of Madhya Pradesh Road Development Corporation Limited has nominated Shri J. P. Shukla as Arbitrator for MPRDC Ltd.
(2) The above said nominee Arbitrators of the parties by mutual consent have appointed me the Presiding Arbitrator to adjudicate the matter in dispute relating to the above-mentioned subject vide email date 05.06.2022. I have accepted to act as Presiding Arbitrator in the above
