1. A contract for octroi collection led to a unilateral appointment of an arbitrator by state authorities without a valid arbitration agreement between the parties. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(SC) 314
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, ALOK ARADHE, JJ.
M/s Bharat Udyog Ltd. (Formerly Known As M/s jai hind Contractors Pvt. Ltd.) – Petitioner
Versus
Ambernath Municipal Council Through Commissioner & Anr. – Respondents
Special Leave Petition (C) No. 1127 of 2017
Decided On : 24-03-2026
Important Points
The absence of a valid arbitration agreement nullifies the arbitral award; participation in proceedings does not confer jurisdiction where consent is absent.
Subject
Arbitration - Validity of Arbitration Agreement
Act Referred
ARBITRATION ACT: S.17, S.30, S.33, S.39
MAHARASHTRA MUNICIPAL COUNCILS NAGAR PANCHAYAT AND INDUSTRIAL TOWNSHIP ACT: S.143(a), S.143(a)(3)
MAHARASHTRA MUNICIPAL COUNCILS NAGAR PANCHAYAT AND INDUSTRIAL TOWNSHIP ACT: S.143(a), S.143(a)(3)
Headnote
(A) Arbitration Act, 1940 - Section 2(a) - Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 - Section 143-A(3) - Absence of arbitration agreement - The Court upheld the High Court’s ruling that no valid arbitration agreement existed, as the State Government lacked authority to appoint an arbitrator in the concluded contract - The petitioner’s claim of waiver was dismissed, stressing the importance of mutual consent in arbitration agreements. (Paras 26 and 27)
(B) Jurisdictional challenge - Court emphasized that the Municipal Council could not be estopped from challenging the arbitral award merely due to its participation in the proceedings as it was compelled without true consent. (Paras 25 and 26)
(C) Nullity of award - The entire arbitral proceedings were deemed nullity and unenforceable due to lack of jurisdiction and absence of mutual consent. (Paras 26 and 27)
(B) Jurisdictional challenge - Court emphasized that the Municipal Council could not be estopped from challenging the arbitral award merely due to its participation in the proceedings as it was compelled without true consent. (Paras 25 and 26)
(C) Nullity of award - The entire arbitral proceedings were deemed nullity and unenforceable due to lack of jurisdiction and absence of mutual consent. (Paras 26 and 27)
Judgement Key Points
Key Points: - The absence of a valid arbitration agreement nullifies the arbitral award (!) . - Participation in arbitral proceedings does not confer jurisdiction where consent is absent (!) . - The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's ruling that no valid arbitration agreement existed because the State Government lacked the authority to appoint an arbitrator in a concluded contract (!) . - The petitioner's claim of waiver was dismissed, emphasizing the importance of mutual consent in arbitration agreements (!) . - The Municipal Council could not be estopped from challenging the arbitral award due to its participation in the proceedings, as it was compelled without true consent (!) . - The entire arbitral proceedings were deemed a nullity and unenforceable due to a lack of jurisdiction and absence of mutual consent (!) . - The Municipal Council is a statutory authority and makes its own decisions within its powers and jurisdiction (!) . - Section 143A(3) of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965, allows the State Government to issue policy directions regarding the regulation of octroi collection but does not grant the power to unilaterally appoint an arbitrator (!) . - Clause 22 of the contract did not constitute a valid arbitration agreement, as it provided for a departmental dispute-resolution mechanism, not arbitration (!) (!) (!) . - The State Government had no jurisdiction under Section 143-A(3) of the Act to appoint an arbitrator for the agent and the Municipal Council (!) .
What is the validity of an arbitral award when there is no valid arbitration agreement?
What are the rights of a party when the other party participates in arbitral proceedings without true consent?
What is the scope of Section 143-A(3) of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 regarding the appointment of an arbitrator?
Legal Category Hierarchy
- administrative law
- arbitration law
- practice and procedure
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s):Mr. P.B. Suresh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Abhishek Bharti, Adv. Mr. Balaji Srinivasan, AOR Ms. Diksha Gupta, Adv. Ms. Mb Ramya, Adv. Ms. Aarti Mahto, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Vinay Navare, Sr. Adv. Mr. Yashodhan Chandurkar, ADv. Ms. Manshi Jain, Adv. Ms. Abha R. Sharma, AOR Mr. Nitin Lonkar, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Shrirang B. Varma, Adv.
For the Petitioner(s):Mr. P.B. Suresh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Abhishek Bharti, Adv. Mr. Balaji Srinivasan, AOR Ms. Diksha Gupta, Adv. Ms. Mb Ramya, Adv. Ms. Aarti Mahto, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Vinay Navare, Sr. Adv. Mr. Yashodhan Chandurkar, ADv. Ms. Manshi Jain, Adv. Ms. Abha R. Sharma, AOR Mr. Nitin Lonkar, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Shrirang B. Varma, Adv.
Table of Contents
2. The petitioner contended that the municipal body acquiesced to arbitration, while the municipal body argued there was no valid arbitration agreement or statutory jurisdiction for such an appointment. (Para 15 , 16 )
3. The court found that the government lacked statutory authority under the municipal legislation to unilaterally appoint an arbitrator, and the contract lacked a valid arbitration clause. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 )
4. Arbitration proceedings initiated without a valid arbitration agreement and mutuality are non-est, and invalid unilateral government interventions cannot establish jurisdictional consent. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 26 )
5. The High Court judgment setting aside the arbitral award is upheld, and the special leave petition is dismissed. (Para 26 , 27 )
6. Does a government resolution under Section 143-A(3) of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils Act carry the authority to unilaterally appoint an arbitrator?
No. The court held that Section 143-A(3) permits policy directions regarding the manner of octroi collection but does not authorize the state to unilaterally foist an arbitration agreement upon an existing contract. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 )
7. Can contractual provisions requiring disputes to be referred to government officials for binding decisions be construed as a valid arbitration agreement?
No. The court concluded that clauses establishing a dispute resolution mechanism within a governmental hierarchy, which do not contemplate alternative dispute resolution, do not constitute a valid arbitration agreement under the Arbitration Act, 1940. (Para 21 , 22 , 24 )
8. Does participation in arbitral proceedings by a party create an estoppel against challenging the arbitrator's jurisdiction?
No. When a party is forced into arbitration without a valid underlying contract or consent, and subsequently raises jurisdictional objections before the civil court, there is no estoppel by acquiescence. (Para 23 , 25 , 26 )
JUDGMENT : :
1. This special leave petition arises out of the final judgment and order1[ First Appeal No. 94 of 2001 dated August 4, 2016.] passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. By the said order, the High Court allowed the appeal filed by the respondent no. 1, Ambernath Municipal Council (hereinafter ‘Municipal Council’) and quashed and set aside the award as well as the judgment of the Civil Court2[Judgment of the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kalyan, dated September 22, 2000, in Misc. Application No. 196/1996.], making the award a rule of the Court and dismissing the objections of the Municipal Council. For the reasons to follow, we have held that there is neither an arbitration agreement between the parties nor an informed consent of the Municipal Council for resolution of the dispute through arbitration. We have therefore upheld the decision of the High Court and dismissed the special leave petition.
2. Facts relevant to the present special leave petition are that the Municipal Council is constituted under the provisions of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965. In March 1994, while exercising powers conferred under Section 143-A of the 1965 Act, the Municipal Council issued a tender for the collection of octroi for a period of one year, beginning on 1 April 1994 and ending on 31 March 1995. The tender notification provided for a reserve price with the term that any offer lower than Rs. 6,74,00,000/-may not be considered and would be rejected. The other tender conditions were of earnest money of Rs. 1,00,000/- in the form of call deposit and a security deposit in the form of bank guarantee of a nationalized or scheduled bank for Rs. 1,07,92,000/-.
3. The petitioner participated in the tender along with other bidders and was declared successful, having submitted its bid for an amount of Rs. 6,75,00,000/-. The Municipal Council accepted the petitioner’s bid and entered into an agreement with the petitioner, dated 30 March 1994, for the said octroi collection contract.
4. The petitioner, after execution of the agreement, commenced the work with effect from 1 April 1994. However, on 2 May 1994 petitioner addressed a letter to the Chief Officer of the Municipal Council requesting that the amount of Rs. 6,74,00,000/- fixed as a minimum reserve price/ bid amount be reduced by Rs. 40,78,517/- on the ground that the same was contrary to the norms to determine the minimum reserve price. This representation of the petitioner was rejected by the Chief Officer of the Municipal Council in his letter dated 27 May 1994, informing that the minimum reserve price for the said tender was fixed as per the guidelines issued by the Government of Maharashtra.
5. Being aggrieved by this decision, the petitioner approached the High Court in Writ Petition No. 3598 of 1994. However, the petitioner later sought leave to withdraw the Petition, with liberty to adopt appropriate proceedings. By an order dated 26 September 1994, the High Court disposed of the writ petition as withdrawn to enable the petitioner to adopt appropriate proceedings.
6. After withdrawing the writ petition, the petitioner approached the Urban Development Department of the Government of Maharashtra by its letter dated 5 October 1994, purportedly on the basis of the leave granted by the High Court to avail alternative remedy, requesting the State Government to appoint an arbitrator to resolve the dispute as raised by petitioner under its letter dated 2 May 1994 to reduce the minimum reserve price from Rs. 6,74,00,000/- to Rs. 6,33,71,483/-.
7. The State Government, though unconnected with the said contract, responded favourably and by a Government Resolution dated 14 November 1994 issued under the signature of the Joint Secretary in the Urban Development Department appointed Commissioner, Konkan Division, as an Arbitrator to arbitrate the said di
